Singh v. Baidwan

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 5/12/14 ORDERING that plaintiff shall file opposition to defendant's dismissal motion no later than 5/27/14 at 4:30 p.m.. Defendant shall file his reply, if any, no later than 6/9/14 at 4:30 p.m.. T he hearing on this motion is SET for 6/23/14 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The Status conference in this matter is reset from 5/19/14 to 8/4/14 at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. Failure to comply with this order may result in a dismissal of this case, in its entirety, with prejudice. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PAUL SINGH,

12
13
14
15

No. CIV. S-14-00603 LKK/CKD
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

BHUPINDER BAIDWAN,
Defendant.

16
17

For the reasons set forth below, the hearing on this motion,

18

currently scheduled for May 19, 2014, will be rescheduled for

19

June 23, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.

20
I.

21
22

BACKGROUND

It appears that Plaintiff Paul Singh and others formed a

23

company (“Company”) to buy Arco gas stations from BP Corporation.

24

Complaint ¶¶ 11-15.

25

talks to buy an Arco gas station (the “gas station”) on Sunrise

26

Boulevard in Sacramento from the Company (the Company presumably

27

had bought the gas station from BP).

28

plan was to own the gas station with non-party Jaskaran Gill,

On February 2, 2007, plaintiff initiated

1

Id., ¶ 13.

Plaintiff’s

1

each to have a 50% interest.

2

Id., ¶ 15.

Plaintiff and Gill had a problem, however.

Although they

3

would be buying the gas station from the Company, it appears that

4

there was an “assignment” of some kind (perhaps of the

5

“franchise” rights, the Complaint does not specify) that BP had

6

to approve before the purchase could go through.

7

make the assignment to plaintiff because he did not meet BP’s

8

permanent residence requirement.

9

the assignment to Gill because he had been turned down for the

Id., ¶ 15.

BP would not

BP would not make

10

loan needed to do the deal, and moreover, BP had already turned

11

him down for the assignment.

12

Id.

Their solution was to use a straw buyer, defendant Bhupinder

13

Baidwan.

14

contract” with the Company.

15

specify what the purchase contract was for, but it appears that

16

it was for Gill and defendant to purchase the gas station, with a

17

50% interest going to Gill and a 50% interest going to defendant.

18

On May 20, 2008, Gill and defendant signed a “purchase
Id., ¶ 16.

The Complaint does not

The Complaint says that the purchase agreement was signed

19

“with the understanding” that plaintiff would “transfer his fifty

20

percent interest in the gas station as well as his shares in [the

21

Company] to Defendant, to hold in trust for [plaintiff].”

22

¶ 16.1

23

Id.,

On May 30, 2008, Gill and Defendant applied for the loan

24

needed to purchase the gas station, from non-party Pacer Funding.

25

Id., ¶ 17.

Defendant was made personally liable on this loan.

26
1

27

This appears to make no sense, since there is no prior allegation that
plaintiff had any 50% interest in the gas station to transfer to defendant, in
trust or otherwise.

28
2

1
2

Id., ¶ 18.
On July 10, 2008, plaintiff and defendant entered into an

3

oral contract (“the Contract”).

4

Plaintiff transferred his shares in the Company to Defendant “to

5

hold in trust for him.”

6

to Defendant his “fifty percent interest held in the gas

7

station.”

8

Plaintiff his shares and interest back to him whenever Plaintiff

9

asked him to.”

Id., ¶ 23.

Id., ¶ 23.

Under the Contract,

Plaintiff also transferred

Under the Contract, Defendant agreed to “return

Id., ¶ 23.

The contract also provided that

10

Defendant “would provide Plaintiff with all profits he made from

11

the sale by [the Company] of the other gas stations proportionate

12

to the shares he held on behalf of Plaintiff.”

13

Eventually, plaintiff demanded his shares and interest back, and

14

defendant refused.

15

Id., ¶ 23.

See Complaint ¶ 26.

In other words, the Complaint alleges that plaintiff and

16

defendant sought to deceive the lender into financing the

17

purchase of the gas station, and to deceive BP into “assigning”

18

the gas station (or the franchise) to plaintiff, through

19

defendant, a straw buyer and borrower.

20

defendant reneged on this scheme, and plaintiff now comes here,

21

asking a federal district court to enforce it.

22

Plaintiff asserts that

Defendant moves to dismiss all the claims as barred by the

23

statute of limitations and the statute of frauds, and for failure

24

to state a claim.

25

the claims under the “unclean hands” doctrine, although that

26

doctrine fairly leaps from the allegations of this Complaint.

27

Under that doctrine, this court would “leave the parties as [it]

28

found them.”

Defendant does not ask the court to dismiss

Wong v. Tenneco, Inc., 39 Cal. 3d 126, 138 (1985).
3

1
2

ANALYSIS

3

Plaintiff has filed an “opposition” (ECF No. 16), that

4

contains no opposition of any kind to defendant’s motion to

5

dismiss for failure to state a claim.

6

that his claims are not barred by the statute of limitations or

7

the statute of frauds, he does not respond to defendant’s

8

arguments that the Complaint fails to state a claim for breach of

9

contract, “libel per se,” unjust enrichment, or any of the other

Although plaintiff argues

10

claims in the Complaint.

11

prosecute, dismissible under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

12

court has an obligation to consider less drastic alternatives to

13

dismissal.

14

Cir. 2010) (district court must consider “the availability of

15

less drastic sanctions”).

16

This constitutes a complete failure to

See Omstead v. Dell, Inc.

However, the

594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th

Accordingly, plaintiff SHALL FILE an opposition to

17

defendant’s dismissal motion – addressing every argument in

18

defendant’s motion – no later than May 27, 2014 at 4:30 p.m.

19

opposition must also show why this court should not dismiss the

20

complaint under the unclean hands doctrine.

21

at 134 (“[t]he trial court properly declined to involve our

22

courts in this flagrant effort to circumvent Mexican law”);

23

California Crane School, Inc. v. National Commission for

24

Certification of Crane Operators, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 2014 WL

25

1848297 (5th Dist. 2014) (discussing the doctrine).

26

shall file his reply, if any, no later than June 9, 2014 at 4:30

27

p.m.

28

at 10:00 a.m.

The

See Wong, 39 Cal. 3d

Defendant

The hearing on this motion is hereby SET for June 23, 2014
The Status conference in this matter is reset from
4

1
2
3

May 19, 2014 to August 4, 2014 at 2:30 p.m.
Failure to comply with this order may result in a dismissal
of this case, in its entirety, with prejudice.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: May 12, 2014.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5