Midland Innovations, NV v. Weiland International Inc. et al

Filing 95


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MIDLAND INNOVATIONS, NV, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 No. C 07-80257 CW Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING THIRD PARTY WEIPING CHEN’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF v. WEILAND INTERNATIONAL, INC; WEN WANG, Defendants. (Docket No. 90) ________________________________/ 11 This case arises from a default judgment entered against 12 Judgment Debtor Wen Wang for patent infringement damages, the 13 amount of which has accumulated to a sum exceeding $1.2 million. 14 On January 14, 2008, Judgment Creditor Midland Innovations, NV 15 recorded an Abstract of Judgment on the property of Wen Wang and 16 his spouse, Third Party Weiping Chen. On March 24, 2014, the 17 undersigned referred the post-judgment matters and collections to 18 Magistrate Judge Vadas. Docket No. 10. On August 22, 2014, Judge 19 Vadas issued four orders regarding the property: (1) Order 20 Enjoining the Levying Officer From Releasing Real Property Levied 21 Under a Writ of Execution (Docket No. 86); (2) Order Denying Third 22 Party Claim of Weiping Chen (Docket No. 87); (3) Order Sustaining 23 Objection to Undertaking Filed by Third Party Weiping Chen and 24 Order for New Undertaking (Docket No. 88); and (4) Order for Sale 25 of Dwelling (Docket No. 89). 26 Chen now moves ex parte for emergency relief from these 27 orders on several grounds, including that Judge Vadas lacked the 28 authority to issue dispositive orders granting injunctive relief. 2 See Estate of Conners by Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 3 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Columbia Record Prods. v. Hot Wax Records, 4 Inc., 966 F.2d 515, 516 (9th Cir.1992)). 5 judge may not decide dispositive matters without the consent of 6 the parties, Chen concedes that under § 636(b)(1)(B) he may 7 conduct evidentiary hearings and submit a report and 8 recommendation to the district judge. 9 STAYS Judge Vadas’ four orders regarding the property and 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 considers the orders as report and recommendations on the 11 underlying motions. 12 not have any injunctive effect unless they are adopted by the 13 undersigned, there is no reason to brief the motion on an 14 expedited schedule.1 15 file a motion for de novo determination of dispositive matter 16 referred to magistrate judge. 17 five pages, to be filed within fourteen days of the issuance of 18 this order. Although the magistrate Accordingly, the Court Because the report and recommendations will Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 72-3, Chen may Any motion must not exceed twenty- Midland may file a response not exceeding twenty-five 19 20 21 22 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 As noted by Midland, Judge Vadas enjoined the levying officer (the United States Marshals Service) from selling the property until further court order. See Docket No. 86 at 6. Thus, even at the filing of this motion, sale of the property was not imminent. The Court’s stay of all four orders, including the later-filed Order for Sale of Dwelling (Docket No. 89), provides further assurance that the property will not be sold until the matter has been reviewed by the undersigned. 2 1 pages, due fourteen days later. 2 exceeding fifteen pages, due seven days later. 3 decided on the papers. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Chen may file a reply not Dated: 8/27/2014 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California The motion will be 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?