May 1, 2024 |
Filing
133
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 131 Motion to Stay. As set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, this case is stayed for six months, and the Court will lift the stay on October 30, 2024, should the bankruptcy court take no action or s hould developments in the bankruptcy proceeding not justify extension of the automatic stay to the Non-Debtor Defendants. See e.g., Plaintiff Funding Holding, LLC, No. 22 CIV. 4094 (KPF), 2023 WL 3506142, at *3; Chord Assocs. LLC, No. 07-5138 JFB AKT, 2010 WL 1257874, at *13. The parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report on or before July 30, 2024, advising the Court of the status of the bankruptcy proceeding. The Bench Trial currently scheduled for July 22, 2024 at 9:30 AM is hereby adjourned sine die. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 5/1/2024. (DF)
|
August 25, 2022 |
Filing
111
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion for Summary Judgment: For the reasons set forth, defendants motion for summary judgment is DENIED for Counts Seven (Fraudulent Inducement), Eight (Securities Fraud under Cal. Cor p. Code § 25401), and Fourteen (Aiding and Abetting Fraud) as to the alleged misrepresentations regarding the size of defendants company and the large deal in place with Amway, but is otherwise GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiffs are directed to file a revised expert damages report reflecting the remaining claims within thirty days and advise the Court if they still intend to move forward. Defendants are to advise the Court ten days thereafter if they wish to pursue the counterclaims. SEE ATTACHED ORDER FOR FURTHER DETAILS. So Ordered by Judge Gary R. Brown on 8/25/2022. (Cubano, Jazmin)
|
April 23, 2018 |
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER: For the reasons stated above, the Defendants 43 motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is granted in part, and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that the Plaintiffs statutory a nd common law claims for fraud, and the request for rescission based on fraud are dismissed. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice. It is denied to the extent that the Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract, and request for injunctive relief, accounting, and constructive trust survive. The Plaintiffs bare request for leave to amend is denied without prejudice as procedurally improper. The Plaintiffs are granted leave to refile their request as a formal motion. Such motion must be made within thirty days of this order. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 4/23/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
March 6, 2018 |
Filing
49
SHORT FORM ORDER - Presently pending before the Court is a 43 motion by the Defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FED. R. CIV. P. or Rule) 12(b)(6). However, the Court is unable to rule on the Defendants&# 039; motion at this time because neither party has briefed the issue of choice of law in any way. Therefore, the parties are directed to file briefs on the question of the choice of law. Accordingly, the parties are directed to file briefs no larger than ten (10) pages discussing the above issues on or before March 27, 2018. If either party wishes to respond to the other party's brief, they shall do so no later than April 3, 2018. Reply briefs are limited to five (5) pages. No extensions of time will be granted, as neither party saw fit to brief this issue in the first instance. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/6/2018. (Coleman, Laurie)
|
July 30, 2016 |
Filing
35
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER denying 28 Motion to Change Venue - For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs motion to retransfer this case to the Central District of California is denied in its entirety. Further, on July 5, 2016, the parties fil ed a proposed stipulation requesting a stay of discovery during the pendency of this motion. In addition, the Plaintiffs indicated that in the event their motion for retransfer is denied, they would likely seek to appeal the August 5, 2015 Order in t he Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiffs are directed to file on ECF within seven days of the date of this Order a letter indicating how they intend to proceed with this case in light of this Order -- namely, whether they intend to file an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and if so, whether the Court must stay this matter during the pendency of that appeal. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 7/30/16. (Coleman, Laurie)
|