Naresh Narayan v. Urban Commons 6th Ave Seattle, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 30, 2023
Docket8:21-cv-01508
StatusUnknown

This text of Naresh Narayan v. Urban Commons 6th Ave Seattle, LLC (Naresh Narayan v. Urban Commons 6th Ave Seattle, LLC) 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
Naresh Narayan v. Urban Commons 6th Ave Seattle, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:21-cv-01508-JLS-DFM Date: November 30, 2023 Title: Naresh Narayan v. Urban Commons 6th Ave Seattle, LLC, et al.

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabby Garcia N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING STAY OF ACTION This action has settled as between Plaintiff Naresh Narayan and the only appearing Defendant, C. Brian Egnatz. (See Order Dismissing Claims Against Egnatz Pursuant to Notice of Settlement, Doc. 73.) However, there are defaulting defendants in this action, and the action remains stayed as to Defendant Howard Wu, pending the resolution of his Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition. (See Order Re: Automatic Stay as to Wu, Doc. 34.) The one judgment rule counsels against entering a final judgment against some but not all defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Frow v. De La Vega, 82 U.S. 552, 552 (1872) (“[A] final decree on the merits against the defaulting defendant[s] alone, pending the continuance of the cause, would be incongruous and illegal.”) As a result, Narayan is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be stayed in its entirety, given that no judgment can be entered against Defendant Wu until the resolution of bankruptcy proceedings and entry of default judgment against the remaining defendants would be in contravention of the one judgment rule. Narayan shall respond in writing, no later than seven (7) days from the issuance of this Order. His response shall not exceed five pages. In addition to a written response, Narayan may file a notice of dismissal as to any Defendants he wishes to dismiss from the action. If Narayan wishes to dismiss the action in its entirety, thatnotice of dismissal may serve as an alternative to a written response. Initials of Deputy Clerk: gga ______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1

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

Related

Frow v. De La Vega
82 U.S. 552 (Supreme Court, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Naresh Narayan v. Urban Commons 6th Ave Seattle, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naresh-narayan-v-urban-commons-6th-ave-seattle-llc-cacd-2023.