Illumination Dynamics Co., LTD. v. Pacific Lighting Solutions L.L.C. et al

Filing 83

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING DEFENDANTS 80 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS RE: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 ILLUMINATION DYNAMICS CO., LTD., a

foreign company,
7

Plaintiff,
8

vs.
9

PACIFIC LIGHTING SOLUTIONS L.L.C.,
10 and BILL ZHANG, an individual,
11

Case No: C 14-0078 SBA
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
ISSUANCE OF FURTHER
INSTRUCTIONS RE: ORDER
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

12
13

This is a breach of contract action brought by Plaintiff Illumination Dynamics

14

(“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Pacific Lighting Solutions L.L.C. (“PLS”) and Bill Zhang

15

(“Zhang”). Prior to the action’s reassignment to this Court, the Magistrate Judge presiding

16

over the action granted Plaintiff’s request for a Writ of Attachment which was served on

17

PLS and third party Menard, Inc. (“Menard”). Dkt. 14, 35. Pursuant to the writ, Menard

18

deposited the sum of $183,504.60 with the Court. Dkt. 78. On August 18, 2014, the Court

19

granted PLS’ Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge

20

and vacated the Writ. Dkt. 69. That order, however, did not address the disposition of the

21

funds deposited with the Court by Menard.

22

On December 16, 2014, PLS filed an Ex Parte Application for Issuance of Further

23

Instructions Re: Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive

24

Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 80. Specifically, PLS requests that the Court

25

direct the Clerk to release and return the sum of $183,504.60 to Menard. However, Menard

26

is not a party to this action and has made no request regarding the disposition of the funds it

27

previously deposited with this Court. In addition, PLS has made no showing that it has the

28

authority to submit any requests to this Court ostensibly on Menard’s behalf. Accordingly,

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLS’ Ex Parte Application for Issuance of

2

Further Instructions Re: Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Non-

3

Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge is DENIED.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/30/15

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-