Miele v. Franklin Resources, Inc. et al

Filing 106

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denying 76 Motion for Writ. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ANTHONY P. MIELE, III,

Case No. 15-cv-00199-LB

Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR EXIGENT RELIEF
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Re: ECF No. 76

16
17

Mr. Miele III moves for exigent relief under the All Writs Act on his remaining claims against

18

Franklin Resources.1 Under the All Writs Act, courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate

19

in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

20

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Injunctive relief under the Act is, however, “to be used sparingly and only in

21

the most critical and exigent circumstances.” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001)

22

(internal quotations omitted). Indeed, an injunction is appropriate “only if the legal rights at issue

23

are indisputably clear.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). The Act thus does not grant “plenary

24
25
26
27
28

1

See Amended Compl. — ECF No. 17, ¶¶ 148–160; Order — ECF No. 45 at 35; Motion for Writ
— ECF No. 76. Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. The court incorporates
by reference the statement of facts in its order at ECF No. 45 and assumes familiarity with those
facts here. (See Order — ECF No. 45 at 2–10.)
ORDER (No. 15-cv-00199-LB)

1

power to the federal courts[;] [r]ather, it is designed to aid the courts in the exercise of their

2

jurisdiction.” Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir. 1979).
Under the All Writs Act, Mr. Miele III asks that the court order Franklin Resources to re-issue

3
4

the allegedly misplaced securities and pay accrued but unpaid dividends under Delaware Code

5

section 8-405 and Delaware Corporations Code section 168(b).2 Section 8-405 provides that in the

6

case of a lost, destroyed, or stolen certificated security, the security-issuer must issue a new

7

certificate if the security-owner: “(1) so requests before the issuer has notice that the certificate has

8

been acquired by a protected purchaser; (2) files with the issuer a sufficient indemnity bond; and

9

(3) satisfies other reasonable requirements imposed by the issuer.” 6 Del. C. § 8-405(a). Even
where these requirements are satisfied, an issuer need not re-issue a certificate if “[1)]the owner

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

fails to notify the issuer” that the security was lost, destroyed, or stolen “within a reasonable time

12

after the owner has notice of it and [2)] the issuer registers a transfer of the security before

13

receiving notification [from the owner].” Id. § 8-406.
The court denies Mr. Miele III’s motion. The relief that he seeks does not aid in the court’s

14
15

jurisdiction, but instead attempts to “resolve finally the captioned action” in its entirety.3 The All

16

Writs Act is not the proper mechanism here: Mr. Miele III effectively leap-frogs the remaining

17

discovery, dispositive motions, and trial to reach a decision on the merits.4
To support his use of the All Writs Act to accomplish this end, Mr. Miele III cites Stern v.

18
19

South Chester Tube Co., 390 U.S. 606 (1968). In that case, the plaintiff-stockholder sued to

20

inspect the books and records of the defendant-corporation. Id. at 606–07. Because the plaintiff

21

had an undoubtable right to inspect the defendant’s records under applicable state law (and

22

because there was no adequate remedy at law), the district court could enforce this right under the

23

All Writs Act. Id. at 609–10.

24
25
26

2

27

3

28

4

See Motion for Writ — ECF No. 76.
Id. at 1; Reply — ECF No. 91 at 15.
Reply at 8, 14.

ORDER (No. 15-cv-00199-LB)

2

Here, unlike Stern, it is not indisputably clear that Mr. Miele III is entitled to the relief he

1
2

seeks. Contrary to his assertions, the One Beacon indemnity bond does not resolve the matter;

3

there are remaining disputes as to the other elements of section 8-405 and the applicability of the

4

section 8-406 defense. And, that One Beacon “is under no obligation to keep its commitment

5

open” does not amount to critical and exigent circumstances to grant summary relief.5 Mr. Miele

6

III may in the end be victorious — e.g. if Franklin Resources cannot produce evidence that the

7

section 8-406 defense applies — but that is an issue for summary judgment or trial, not the All

8

Writs Act.
For these reasons and those stated on the record, and having considered Mr. Miele III’s August

9
10

4 submission,6 the court denies Mr. Miele III’s motion for exigent relief.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This disposes of ECF No. 76.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: August 8, 2016
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Motion for Writ — ECF No. 76-1 at 2–3.

6

Affidavit in Support of Motion — ECF No. 103.

ORDER (No. 15-cv-00199-LB)

3