Telecom Asset Management, LLC v. FiberLight, LLC

Filing 194


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TELECOM ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-00728-SI Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 FIBERLIGHT, LLC, Defendant. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY POST-JUDGMENT ORDER PENDING CLARIFICATION Re: Dkt. Nos. 180, 191 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Before the Court is defendant’s motion seeking clarification of the Court’s December 12, 13 2016 order granting an assignment of rights and restraining defendant from disposing of certain 14 proceeds (the “Assignment Order”). Mot. for Clarification (Dkt. No. 180); Assignment Order 15 (Dkt. No. 176). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is resolved without oral argument. 16 The Court assumes that the parties are familiar with the background of this case. On 17 December 12, 2016, the Court entered the Assignment Order. In the Assignment Order, the Court 18 granted plaintiff Telecom Asset Management, LLC (“TAM”) an assignment of rights in certain of 19 defendant FiberLight, LLC’s (“FiberLight’s”) accounts receivable from non-party Verizon 20 Wireless (“Verizon”). The Court also issued a restraining order to prevent FiberLight from 21 otherwise disposing of those rights to payment. In the Assignment Order, the Court stated that the 22 assignment of rights would be effective 60 days from December 12, 2016, or on 23 February 10, 2017. Shortly after entry of the Assignment Order, TAM sought to serve Verizon 24 with notice of the order “to ensure that Verizon has adequate time to take all of the internal steps” 25 to start paying TAM on February 10. Opp’n (Dkt. No. 183) at 1. TAM notified FiberLight of its 26 intention to immediately serve Verizon and sent FiberLight a copy of the proposed notice. 27 On December 27, 2016, FiberLight filed this motion seeking clarification of the 28 Assignment Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and for a stay of the Assignment 1 Order pending clarification. FiberLight asks the Court to clarify the Assignment Order in two 2 respects: (1) by stating that TAM cannot serve its notice on Verizon before February 10, 2017, 3 when the Assignment Order becomes effective by its own terms; and (2) by stating, in essence, 4 that FiberLight’s secured lender, CoBank, has a priority interest in the Verizon receivables, and 5 that CoBank must be repaid in full (roughly $200,000,000) prior to TAM’s receipt of any 6 proceeds. Rule 60(a) provides that a “court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from 8 oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The 9 court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). 10 However, “after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending,” the 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 7 Court may correct or clarify the Assignment Order “only with the appellate court’s leave.” See 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). 13 FiberLight filed a notice of appeal of the Assignment Order on January 11, 2017. Dkt. 14 No. 190. The appeal was docketed on January 13, 2017. See Telecom Asset Mgmt., LLC v. 15 FiberLight, LLC, No. 17-15066 (9th Cir. docketed Jan. 13, 2017). Accordingly, without leave 16 from the Ninth Circuit, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief under Rule 60. 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); see also In re Wachovia Corp. Pick-A-Payment Mortg. Mktg. & Sales 18 Practices Litig., No. 09-MD-02015-JF, 2011 WL 3648508, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2011) 19 (“Because Rose has filed an appeal, this Court could not offer the ‘clarification’ requested by Rose 20 [under Rule 60(a)] without leave of the appellate court.”). 21 Accordingly, FiberLight’s motion is DENIED.1 22 This order resolves Dkt. Nos. 180, 191. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: January 23, 2017 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 25 26 27 1 28 FiberLight’s motion for leave to submit supplemental evidence, Dkt. No. 191, is DENIED as moot. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?