Fox Partners, L.P. v. Grand Home Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER re Motion for Writ of Attachment. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 3/25/2013. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2013) Modified on 3/25/2013 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

FOX PARTNERS, L.P.
Plaintiff,

8
9

v.

ORDER

GRAND HOME HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

10

United States District Court

No. C 13-0221 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Defendants Grand Home Holdings, Inc. and Grand Home Enterprise Co. Ltd.

14

removed this action from the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, on January

15

16, 2013.1 On January 29, 2013, Grand Home Holdings, Inc. filed an answer to the

16

complaint. On February 6, 2013, plaintiff Fox Partners L.P. filed a motion for writ of

17

attachment, against Grand Home Holdings, Inc. On February 20, 2013, Grand Home

18

Holdings, Inc. filed an opposition to the motion for writ of attachment.

19
20

Meanwhile, on February 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against
Grand Home Enterprise Co. Ltd. The court entered the default on February 21, 2013.2

21

On February 27, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of the motion for writ of

22

attachment “and pleadings in support thereof.” Also on February 27, 2013, plaintiff filed

23

another motion for writ of attachment, against Grand Home Holdings, Inc., noticing the

24

motion for hearing on April 3, 2013.

25
26
27
28

1

On March 5, 2013, Grand Home Holdings, Inc. filed an “amended” notice of removal,
stating that it was the sole defendant that had been served as of the time of removal and was
therefore the sole defendant removing the action; and also stating that it had misstated the
name of the other defendant. Instead of Grand Home Enterprise Co. Ltd., the name should
have been Grand Hall Enterprise Co. Ltd.
2

See note 1, above. It now appears that default was entered against the wrong party.

1

Due to the court’s unavailability on April 3, 2013 (as indicated on the court’s

2

website), the date noticed for the hearing on the motion for writ of attachment is VACATED.

3

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this court, any opposition to the motion for writ of

4

attachment was due on March 13, 2013, and any reply to the opposition was due on March

5

20, 2013. Civ. L.R. 7-3. To date, no opposition to the February 27, 2013 motion has been

6

filed.

7

No later than March 27, 2013, the parties shall jointly advise the court whether the

opposed, defendant must file an opposition no later than March 27, 2013, and plaintiff must

10

file a reply no later than April 3, 2013. The parties shall also indicate whether they wish the

11
For the Northern District of California

motion for writ of attachment is opposed, and if so, on what basis. If the motion is

9

United States District Court

8

court to hold a hearing, and on what date (at least 14 days after the reply is filed). The

12

court’s calendar for April 17, 2013 is full.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: March 25, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2