Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC et al v. Pinnacle Monterey LLC et al

Filing 171

ORDER GRANTING 79 MOTION TO CLARIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND CLARIFYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; GRANTING IN PART 146 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE LIMITED DISCOVERY. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 4/10/2015. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MONTEREY BAY MILITARY HOUSING,
LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

PINNACLE MONTEREY LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 14-cv-03953-BLF
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CLARIFY PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION AND CLARIFYING
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO TAKE LIMITED
DISCOVERY
[Re: ECF 79, 146]

12
13

On April 9, 2015, the Court heard argument on Defendants’ Motion to Clarify Preliminary

14
15
16
17

Injunction, ECF 79, and Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to Take Limited Discovery, ECF 146.
I.

MOTION TO CLARIFY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
For the reasons stated on the record, Defendants’ motion to clarify the status quo

18

injunction entered by the state court on December 28, 2011 is GRANTED. The injunction is

19

clarified as follows:

20

The status quo injunction is clear on its face: “Defendants may not take actions that are

21

based on their contention that the disputed provisions of [the] Agreements have already been

22

adjusted. Plaintiffs may not take actions that are based on their contention that the disputed

23

provisions of [the] Agreements have not been adjusted.” Decl. of Alice Y. Chu, ECF 79-7 Exh. A

24

(December 28, 2011 “Status Quo Inj.”) at 2. As further clarified by the state court, the status quo

25

injunction “is not intended to and does not prevent action that California law permits or requires,

26

and is not intended to and does not require action that California law prohibits.” Decl. of Yates M.

27

French, ECF 114-1 Exh. 13 at 3. In sum, “the status quo is that the validity of the adjustments to

28

the [Property Management] Agreements is in dispute.” Status Quo Inj. at 1. The status quo

1

injunction therefore pertains only to actions proscribed under section 18 of the PMAs and is not

2

intended to regulate the parties’ other actions under the Agreements.

3
4
5
6
7

II.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE LIMITED DISCOVERY
For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Take Limited

Discovery is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiffs shall have leave to subpoena Union Bank and Quality Plumbing for Joni
Calloway’s bank records.

8

Plaintiffs shall also have leave to take a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)

9

deposition of AMS/AMSC on the limited subject matters pertaining to the written reprimand of
Jewel Dunn, as identified in Plaintiffs’ February 10, 2015 Notice of Deposition. Decl. of Jessica J.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Bluebond-Langner, ECF 146-1 Exh. 8. Such deposition shall not exceed two (2) hours and shall

12

be completed by April 30, 2015.

13

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED with respect to the remaining requests.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: April 10, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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