The Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan et al v. Before The Devil Knows Inc et al
Filing
24
ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Issuance of Order to Show Cause re Contempt. Plaintiffs fail to assert any facts establishing that Linse aided or abetted Defendant in violating the Court's Order. The a ssertion that Linse is an officer of the corporation, without more, is insufficient. Furthermore, while Plaintiffs contend that they sent a copy of the Order to Defendant via certified mail, they have not presented competent evidence that Linse personally received and/or had notice of the Order. (lom)
<![CDATA[
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Case No. CV 10-09385 ODW (JEMx)
The Board of Directors of the Motion)
)
Picture Industry Pension Plan, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Before the Devil Knows, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )
Order DENYING Motion for
Issuance of Order to Show Cause Re:
Contempt [19] [Filed 08/22/11] and
VACATING Hearing Thereon
19
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs, The Board of Directors of the Motion
20
Picture Industry Pension Plan, The Motion Picture Industry Individual Account Plan, and
21
Motion Picture Industry Health Plan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion for the Issuance
22
of an Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. No. 19.) Plaintiffs seek to hold Brian Loren Linse
23
(“Linse”), who is allegedly an officer of Defendant, Before the Devil Knows, Inc.
24
(“Defendant”), in contempt of the Court’s March 2, 2011 Order (the “Order”). (Id.)
25
Linse, however, is not a party to the instant litigation.
26
“[T]o be held liable in contempt, it is necessary that a non-party respondent must
27
either abet the defendant [in violating the court’s order] or be legally identified with him,
28
and that the non-party have notice of the order[.]” Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140
1
1
F.3d 1313, 1323-24, (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs fail to
2
assert any facts establishing that Linse aided or abetted Defendant in violating the Court’s
3
Order. The assertion that Linse is an officer of the corporation, without more, is
4
insufficient. Furthermore, while Plaintiffs contend that they sent a copy of the Order to
5
Defendant via certified mail, they have not presented competent evidence that Linse
6
personally received and/or had notice of the Order.
7
8
In light of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED. The September 26, 2011
hearing on the matter is VACATED and no appearances are necessary.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
September 14, 2011
12
13
__________ _______________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
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?
