Natomas Gardens Investment Group LLC et al v. Sinadinos et al

Filing 396

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/24/12 ORDERING that Plaintiff Natomas Gardens Investment Group LLC REQUEST for an order dismissing its claims as to all defendants 395 is DENIED, without prejudice to the filing of a proper stipulation or motion.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

NATOMAS GARDENS INVESTMENT
GROUP LLC, a California
limited liability company,
ORCHARD PARK DEVELOPMENT
LLC, a California limited
liability company,
NO. CIV. S-08-2308 LKK/EFB

13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.

O R D E R

15
JOHN G. SINADINOS, et al.,
16
Defendants.

17

/
18
19

The court is in receipt of a “Request” from plaintiff Natomas

20

Gardens Investment Group LLC (“plaintiff”) for an order dismissing

21

its claims “as to all defendants,” with prejudice.

22

The “request” makes no reference to any rule of federal procedure

23

nor to any local rule of this court.

24

////

25

////

26

////
1

Dkt. No. 395.

1

Plaintiff may seek an order of this court by filing a proper
See E.D. Cal. R. 143 & 230.1

2

stipulation or noticed motion.

3

document filed by plaintiff is neither.2

4

is DENIED, without prejudice to the filing of a proper stipulation

5

or motion.3

6

DATED:

Accordingly, the request

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

The

July 24, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

1

The “request” does not qualify as a voluntary dismissal by
the plaintiff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), as the defendants
sought to be dismissed have already answered, and it is not signed
by all the defendants who have made an appearance and who are
sought to be dismissed (in fact, it is not signed by any of them).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). In addition, the
local rules governing ex parte requests (Local R. 231), do not
appear to apply here.
2

18
19

The “request” attaches a twelve-page “Settlement Agreement.”
However, the “request” for dismissal itself is not signed by anyone
other than plaintiff’s counsel.
3

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

The court notes that among the defendants plaintiff asks the
court to dismiss are Baljit and Harinder Johl, who are not parties
to the attached Settlement Agreement. It appears that plaintiff
still has a “derivative” claim for Conversion (“Count Eleven”),
pending against the Johls. The Johls have, among other things,
hired counsel, twice moved to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 35 and 129) (the
RICO conspiracy claims were dismissed), and moved for attorney fees
and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 (Dkt. No. 266, later withdrawn).
Other defendants sought to be dismissed have also engaged counsel
and answered the Complaint, First Amended Complaint and/or Second
Amended Complaint, including pro se defendant Margarita Leavitt.
The court cannot know what dismissal terms are just without having
a stipulation from these defendants, or hearing from them on a
noticed motion.
2