TDX Power Services, LLC v. Rigaud et al
Filing
31
ORDER by Judge Hamilton re application for writ of attachment, and request for inspection (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
TDX POWER SERVICES LLC,
9
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff,
LOUIS RIGAUD, et al.,
12
No. C 12-4419 PJH
ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT, AND
REQUEST FOR INSPECTION
Defendants.
_______________________________/
13
14
The application of plaintiff TDX Power Services, LLC (“TDX”) for a writ of pre-
15
judgment attachment, or in the alternative, for inspection, came on for hearing before this
16
court on February 6, 2013. Plaintiff appeared by its counsel Mitchell Greenberg, and
17
defendant Louis Rigaud appeared by his counsel Donald McMillan. Defendant Wells Fargo
18
Bank, which was previously dismissed from the case, did not appear. Having read the
19
parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority,
20
the court hereby DENIES the application for writ of attachment, and GRANTS the request
21
for an inspection in part and DENIES it in part, as follows and for the reasons stated at the
22
hearing.
23
At the hearing, the parties requested an immediate referral to the court’s ADR
24
program, so that they could work towards a “business solution” of their dispute, with the
25
assistance of a mediator. The court made the referral, and the ADR Clerk filed a notice on
26
February 7, 2013 appointing a mediator.
27
28
In light of all of the factual disputes surrounding the oral modifications of the terms of
the contract, the court finds that plaintiff has not established that it is more likely than not
1
that it will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the breach of contract claim.
2
Additionally, given the parties’ agreement to work towards a business solution, the court
3
DENIES the application for the writ of attachment.
4
As for the inspection, the court finds that while TDX is entitled to an inspection to
5
determine whether the turbines are in fact located at defendant’s premises, the inspection
6
previously demanded by TDX was excessive in scope and therefore unreasonable at this
7
stage of the process. The court thus GRANTS leave for a one-hour inspection (in line with
8
TDX’s prior inspections), but DENIES the request for the six-to-seven-hour inspection
9
demanded by TDX. The inspection ordered by this ruling also supercedes any inspection
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
requested by TDX to date pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 8, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?