Robert E Lyon v. Edwin D Schindler et al
Filing
77
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby DENIES Schindler's Motion for Clarification of purportedly inconsistent rulings of the court 68 and GRANTS Schindler's Motion to Dismiss His Counterclaims 70 . Additionally, the Court DENIES Schindler's request to appear by telephone 75 as moot. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-8990 CAS (VBKx)
Title
ROBERT E. LYON V. EDWIN D. SCHINDLER, ET AL.
Present: The Honorable
Date
August 8, 2013
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder
N/A
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS): MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (Docket
#68, filed July 15, 2013)
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM (Docket #70, filed
July 15, 2013)
REQUEST TO APPEAR VIA TELEPHONE (Docket #74, filed
August 6, 2013)
I.
INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION
The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of August 12, 2013 is
vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
Plaintiff Robert Lyon (“Lyon”) filed the instant action in Los Angeles County
Superior Court on September 17, 2012 against Edwin Schindler (“Schindler”).
Subsequently, Schindler removed the action to this Court on October 18, 2012. Lyon’s
complaint asserts five claims for relief: (1) breach of contract, (2) open book account, (3)
account stated, (4) reasonable value of services, and (5) fraud. Also, Schindler has filed a
single counterclaim against plaintiff for conversion.
On July 15, 2013, Schindler filed a motion seeking clarification of purportedly
inconsistent rulings of the Court. After reviewing the motion, the Court finds no
inconsistencies in the Court’s prior rulings. Although Schindler claims that the Court
was inconsistent regarding whether Lyon’s claims relied on the existence of a payment
obligation between Amkie and Lyon, the Court finds no such inconsistency in its orders.
CV-12-8990 CAS (VBKx)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 12-8990 CAS (VBKx)
Date
August 8, 2013
Title
ROBERT E. LYON V. EDWIN D. SCHINDLER, ET AL.
In both orders, the Court found that the accrual date of Lyon’s claim depended on
whether, in fact, Amkie would provide payment to Lyon, regardless of the existence of
any obligation. Dkt # 57 at 8; Dkt # 65 at 5. The Court therefore denies the motion.
Furthermore, the Court hereby admonishes Schindler to cease filing frivolous motions in
the future.
Additionally, on July 15, 2013, Schindler filed a motion to dismiss his counterclaim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). This request is unopposed, and
otherwise appears proper, and therefore the Court grants the request.
II. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES Schindler’s motion for
clarification and GRANTS Schindler’s motion to dismiss his counterclaim. Additionally,
the Court DENIES Schindler’s request to appear by telephone as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer
CV-12-8990 CAS (VBKx)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
:
00
CMJ
Page 2 of 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?