Baskin Robbins Franchising LLC et al v. Bardale, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/24/2011 denying 26 Motion for Stay. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
BARDALE, INC., a California
)
corporation, JIM DALE, and ERIN
)
DALE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
BASKIN ROBBINS FRANCHISING,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and BR IP HOLDER, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

1:10-cv-1535 AWI GSA
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR STAY
(Doc. No. 26)

18
19
On August 22, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to stay. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 26.
20
The motion is a notice of bankruptcy by Defendants Jim Dale and Erin Dale. See id. The filing
21
of a bankruptcy would normally result in an automatic stay of this case. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a);
22
Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 2003).
23
However, this case terminated in February 2011. The Court adopted findings and
24
recommendations, closed the case, issued a permanent injunction, and entered judgment between
25
February 3 and February 25 of this year. See Court’s Docket Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 21. With respect
26
to the permanent injunction, Defendants had 14 days in which to comply, and there has been no
27
indication that full compliance did not occur. See id. at Doc. No. 19. An abstract of judgment
28

1

was issued on May 9, 2011. See id. at Doc. No. 25. The next, and last, filing in this case was the

2

motion for stay. See id. at Doc. No. 26. There are no other pending motions, and the time for

3

filing an appeal has long passed. See Fed. R. App. Pro. 4. The Court is aware of no ongoing

4

activity in this case. Because there are no outstanding motions (save this motion to stay) and

5

otherwise no activity regarding this case whatsoever, this case terminated in February 2011, and

6

remains terminated. As such, without additional explanation from Defendants, the Court is

7

unaware of anything to stay.

8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay is DENIED as
moot because this case terminated in February 2011.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
0m8i78

August 24, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

daw

2