Plainfield Direct Inc et al v. Penta Water Company Inc
Filing
38
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/17/13.(kaj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
PLAINFIELD DIRECT INC., a Delaware
corporation, and CUNEO CAPITAL
PARTNERS I LLC, a Connecticut limited
liability company,
CASE NO. 08cv1350-LAB (NLS)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
13
Plaintiffs,
14
15
16
vs.
PENTA WATER COMPANY, INC., a
California corporation,
Defendant.
17
18
19
On November 9, 2009, this action was automatically stayed because of Defendant’s
20
bankruptcy. The Court’s order staying the case required Defendant to file a notice as soon
21
as bankruptcy proceedings ended. Except for a change of address Defendant’s counsel
22
filed in the docket on May 5, 2010, the parties filed nothing since that time.
23
The Court on April 2, 2013 ordered Plaintiffs to file a notice apprising the Court of the
24
status of their claims, within 14 calendar days. The order cautioned Plaintiffs that if they
25
failed to file a notice, this action would be dismissed without prejudice. Since then, they have
26
filed nothing.
27
Because Defendant’s bankruptcy petition was filed in this District’s bankruptcy court,
28
the Court has reviewed the docket in that case, In re Penta Water Company, Inc., 09-15145-
-1-
08cv1350
1
LT11. Although the briefing does not clearly identify the connection between the claims dealt
2
with in the bankruptcy action and Plaintiffs’ claim in this case, it appears the bankruptcy court
3
approved a settlement between Plaintiffs (or their successors) on the one hand, and Penta
4
Water on the other concerning a loan. (See Docket no. 296 in In re Penta Water.) This action
5
sought to collect on an unpaid loan of about the same amount, and it may have been the
6
same loan. The last docket item in the bankruptcy case was an amended postconfirmation
7
report filed October 31, 2012.
8
In short, the proceedings recorded in the bankruptcy docket suggest that Plaintiffs
9
may have avoided filing the status notice because their claims have already been dealt with
10
in the bankruptcy case and Plaintiffs are not prepared to litigate them further in this action.
11
This action is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
DATED: April 17, 2013
14
15
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
08cv1350
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?