Bodie Investment Group, Inc. v Marani Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 30

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 22 ) by Judge Josephine L. Staton. Accordingly, Defendants may file their response, if any, to the Application within forty-eight (48) hours of this Order. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve this Order on Defendants by email forthwith. Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will rule on the Application at the earlier of the receipt of Defendant's response, or when the time for such response has expired. (see document for details). (dro)

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-01946-JLS-JDE
Title: Bodie Investment Group, Inc. v. Marani Brands, Inc. et al

Date: November 28, 2017

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 22)

Before the Court is Plaintiff Bodie Investment Group, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application
for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary
Injunction Should Not Issue. (See Doc. 22.) The Court also received via email a letter
from co-defendant Paul Strickland, the CEO of Marani Brands, Inc. on November 27,
2017. The letter purports to address the issue of the temporary restraining order, but it
was not properly filed or served on the Plaintiff. Per Local Rule 83-2.5 and Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 5, the Court considers this letter an improper ex parte communication
and will not consider it in ruling on the application. Nevertheless, the Court will put
Strickland’s letter on the docket so that Plaintiff is aware of the nature of the
communication.
In light of the fact that (1) Plaintiff delayed significantly from the initial filing of
its application for a Temporary Restraining Order (see Doc. 2) to its proper service on
Defendants, and (2) its appears that Defendants may wish to respond but may not yet
have retained counsel, the Court finds that there is good cause to allow Defendants
additional time to respond to Plaintiff’s Application.
Accordingly, Defendants may file their response, if any, to the Application within
forty-eight (48) hours of this Order. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve this Order on
Defendants by email forthwith. Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will rule on the
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-01946-JLS-JDE
Title: Bodie Investment Group, Inc. v. Marani Brands, Inc. et al

Date: November 28, 2017

Application at the earlier of the receipt of Defendant’s response, or when the time for
such response has expired.

Initials of Preparer: tg

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2