JD BROTHERS LLC v. Liberty Asset Management Corporation et al

Filing 271

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO REOPEN CASE, AND DENYING MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Chhabria denying 268 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 269 Motion to Reopen Case. (vclc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JD BROTHERS LLC, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01373-VC

Plaintiffs,
v.
LIBERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
REOPEN CASE, AND DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 268, 269

The plaintiffs’ request to reopen the case is denied in part and granted in part. The prior
Order of Dismissal is withdrawn, and the court will retain jurisdiction over the case to enforce
the terms of the settlements with Lucy Gao, Benjamin Kirk, and Sunshine Valley LLC.
Nonetheless, it appears there are no further active claims in the case. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that any claims that have not already been disposed of by earlier orders are
DISMISSED, and that the Clerk of the Court administratively close the case. See Dkt. Nos. 254,
263, 266. The parties retain the right to reopen this action within 60 days of this Order. If a
request to reopen the case is not filed and served on opposing counsel within 60 days, the
dismissal of any remaining claims will be with prejudice. After the 60-day period, parties
subject to settlement agreements can move to reopen the case if and when they require court
intervention to enforce the terms of those agreements.
The plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal is denied because it fails to comply with the
court’s standing order. Moreover, some of the material that the plaintiffs propose to seal is

already part of the public record. Any renewed request to seal must be filed within seven days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2018
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2