Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc.

C.D. California

Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 16, 2024

Docket2:19-cv-10360

StatusUnknown

This text of Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc. (Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:19-cv-10360-RGK-PLA Date January 16, 2024 Title Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Why Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE 198] Should Not Be Granted Under Law of the Case On December 22, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that collateral estoppel precludes relitigating the same issues underlying Plaintiff's RICO claim already litigated and decided during the 2021 jury trial over Plaintiff's fraud and breach of contract claims. Having reviewed the parties’ briefings and the applicable law, it appears collateral estoppel does not apply, although the doctrine of the law of the case does apply. See United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907, 925 n.11 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that law of the case, not collateral estoppel, is appropriate where the decision with preclusive effect had not finally disposed of the litigation between the parties). Under this doctrine, “a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court.” Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing factors a court considers in applying the law of the case doctrine). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing as to whether the Motion should be granted under the doctrine of the law of the case. Such a response shall not exceed five pages and must be submitted within two days of this Order’s issuance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer JRE/de

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:19-cv-10360-RGK-PLA Date January 16, 2024 Title Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc., et al.

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Why Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [DE 198] Should Not Be Granted Under Law of the Case On December 22, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that collateral estoppel precludes relitigating the same issues underlying Plaintiff's RICO claim already litigated and decided during the 2021 jury trial over Plaintiff's fraud and breach of contract claims. Having reviewed the parties’ briefings and the applicable law, it appears collateral estoppel does not apply, although the doctrine of the law of the case does apply. See United States v. Park Place Assocs., Ltd., 563 F.3d 907, 925 n.11 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that law of the case, not collateral estoppel, is appropriate where the decision with preclusive effect had not finally disposed of the litigation between the parties). Under this doctrine, “a court is ordinarily precluded from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court.” Old Person v. Brown, 312 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 996 (9th Cir. 1988)); see also United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing factors a court considers in applying the law of the case doctrine). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to show cause in writing as to whether the Motion should be granted under the doctrine of the law of the case. Such a response shall not exceed five pages and must be submitted within two days of this Order’s issuance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer JRE/de

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Global Master International Group, Inc. v. Esmond Natural, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/global-master-international-group-inc-v-esmond-natural-inc-cacd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack