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