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

Filing 95

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken REGARDING THIRD PARTY WEIPING CHENS 90 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2014)

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