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

Filing 96

ORDER RE RELEASE OF FUNDS. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on 7/15/2015. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 ILLUMINATION DYNAMICS CO., LTD., a

Case No: C 14-0078 SBA

foreign company,
ORDER RE RELEASE OF FUNDS

7

Plaintiff,
8

vs.
9

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

Defendants.

11
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

On or about March 21, 2014, non-party Menard, Inc. (“Menard”) deposited the sum of

16

$183,504.60 (“Funds”) with the Court, pursuant to a pursuant to a Writ of Attachment

17

(“Writ”) issued by a Magistrate Judge Spero. Dkt. 16, 78. The Court subsequently vacated

18

the Writ on August 18, 2014. Dkt. 69.

19

On or about June 18, 2015, the Court received a letter from Todd Lemanski,

20

Menard’s in-house counsel, requesting the return of the Funds. Because the letter was

21

simply mailed to the Court, the Court Clerk contacted Menard’s counsel with instructions

22

to e-file the request. Counsel failed to do so. Nonetheless, because there appeared to be no

23

legal basis for the continued retention of the Funds, the Court issued an Order on July 7,

24

2015, directing the parties to show cause by the Funds should not be released to Menard.

25

Dkt. 93.

26

Plaintiff and PLS have timely responded to the order to show cause. Dkt. 94, 95.

27

PLS contends that in view of the Court’s order vacating the Writ, the Funds should be

28

released and returned to Menard. In contrast, Plaintiff requests that the Court maintain

1

possession of the Funds until after the mandatory settlement conference scheduled for July

2

23, 2015. Plaintiff claims that retaining the Funds will facilitate settlement. In addition,

3

Plaintiff asserts that Magistrate Judge Spero’s prior order granting the Writ necessarily

4

shows the “probable validity” of its claims against Defendants. However, even if Plaintiff

5

is correct, the fact remains that no legal basis has been presented to the Court to justify its

6

continued retention of the Funds. Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

8

1.

9

The Clerk shall return to Menard the sum of $183,504.60, previously received

by the Court on March 21, 2014. A check in said amount shall be made payable to

10

“Menard, Inc.,” and mailed to: Menard, Inc., c/o Todd Lemanski, 5101 Menard Dr., Eau

11

Claire, WI 54703-9625. The Clerk shall include a copy of this Order along with the check

12

to Menard.

13
14
15
16

2.

The letter submitted to the Court by Menard, dated June 8, 2015, shall be e-

filed and docketed by the Clerk.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/15/15

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

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