Michael H. Resh et al v. China Agritech, Inc. et al

Filing 50

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Order Re: Dismissal Order as to Plaintiffs' Claims Against Remaining Defendants by Judge R. Gary Klausner: On December 1, 2014, the Court granted motions to dismiss filed by China AG and Law pursuant toFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that Plaintiffs class action claims were barred by the statute oflimitations. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the Remaining Defendants should not also bedismissed from this action. On December 8, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Order.Plaintiffs fail to provide an adequate reason why, in light of the Courts December 1, 2014 order, theclaims against the Remaining Defendants should not also be dismissed. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES theRemaining Defendants. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (bp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-05083 RGK (PJWx)

Title

RESH, et al. v. CHINA AGRITECH, INC., et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 7, 2015

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Dismissal Order as to Plaintiffs’ Claims
Against Remaining Defendants

On September 4, 2014, Michael H. Resh (“Resh”), William Schoenke, Heroca Holding B.V., and Ninella
Beheer B.V. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”) against China
Agritech, Inc. (“China AG”), Charles Law (“Law”), and the following other defendants: (1) Yu Chang, (2) YauSing Tang, (3) Gene Michael Bennett, (4) Xiao Rong Teng, (5) Ming Fang Zhu, (6) Lun Zhang Dai, (7) Hai Lin
Zhang, and (8) Zheng Anne Wang (collectively, the “Remaining Defendants”).
On December 1, 2014, the Court granted motions to dismiss filed by China AG and Law pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that Plaintiffs’ class action claims were barred by the statute of
limitations. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause as to why the Remaining Defendants should not also be
dismissed from this action. On December 8, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Order.
Plaintiffs fail to provide an adequate reason why, in light of the Court’s December 1, 2014 order, the
claims against the Remaining Defendants should not also be dismissed. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the
Remaining Defendants.
Plaintiffs are not prevented from filing a complaint asserting individual, rather than class action, claims
against China AG, Law, and the Remaining Defendants if they so choose.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1