Bonvivino Capital LLC v. Morgan Clendenen et al

Filing 124

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court therefore ORDERS Cold Heaven and Clendenen to SHOW CAUSE in writing by Friday, September 5, 2014, why they filed counterclaims against Roger Manlin with out Court approval. No hearing will be held; Counterclaimants shall respond in writing. The Court will discharge this Order upon the filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to the Roger Manlin counterclaims. Failure to timely respond will result in dismissal of the counterclaims and such other sanctions as the Court deems just and proper. (lc). Modified on 9/3/2014. (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

BONVIVINO CAPITAL LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case № 2:12-cv-08185-ODW(FFMx)

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.

13

MORGAN CLENDENEN; COLD

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

14

HEAVEN CELLARS LLC; DOES 1–50,

COURT ORDER

15

inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17

COLD HEAVEN CELLARS LLC;

18

MORGAN CLENDENEN,
Counterclaimants,

19
20

v.

21

SCOTT MANLIN; ROGER MANLIN;

22

BONVIVINO CAPITAL LLC,

23

Counterdefendants.

24

On July 14, 2014, the Court held a status conference in the related case of Cold

25

Heaven Cellars LLC v. Manlin, No. 2:14-cv-01050-ODW(FFMx) (C.D. Cal. case

26

filed Feb. 11, 2014). The Court found that the claims brought by Cold Heaven Cellars

27

LLC and Morgan Clendenen in that action were really compulsory counterclaims that

28

they should have brought in this action, which is the original case between the parties.

1

The Court therefore granted Cold Heaven and Clendenen leave to amend their answer

2

in this action to add those compulsory counterclaims.

3

On August 8, 2014, Cold Heaven and Clendenen filed an Amended Answer in

4

this action. (ECF No. 118.) As instructed, they also filed their claims from the later

5

action as counterclaims. But in addition to bringing counterclaims against Bonvivino

6

Capital LLC and Roger Manlin—the defendants in the second-filed action—Cold

7

Heaven and Clendenen also filed a counterclaim against Roger Manlin.

8

Cold Heaven and Clendenen had never named Roger Manlin as a defendant in

9

the later action, and thus the Court did not grant them leave to amend their answer in

10

this case to bring counterclaims against him. The whole point of requiring Cold

11

Heaven and Clendenen to bring the claims in the second-filed action as compulsory

12

counterclaims in this case was to streamline the litigation between the parties instead

13

of engaging in a piecemeal approach. Adding new counterdefendants at this point—

14

especially without Court approval—throws a wrench into the judicial machinery. This

15

is especially apparent in light of the September 2, 2014 Ex Parte Application for

16

Protective Order filed by Bonvivino and Scott and Roger Manlin. (ECF No. 122.)

17

The Court therefore ORDERS Cold Heaven and Clendenen to SHOW CAUSE

18

in writing by Friday, September 5, 2014, why they filed counterclaims against Roger

19

Manlin without Court approval. No hearing will be held; Counterclaimants shall

20

respond in writing. The Court will discharge this Order upon the filing of a notice of

21

voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to the Roger Manlin counterclaims. Failure

22

to timely respond will result in dismissal of the counterclaims and such other

23

sanctions as the Court deems just and proper.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

September 3, 2014

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2