-FBS Pinpoint IT Services, LLC v. Atlas IT Export Corp., No. 2:2010cv00516 - Document 94 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Stay and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Opposition to the Motion to Modify the Stay are DENIED, Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Pleading out of Time is GRANTED, Plaintiff's Motion Requesting a Ruling on Pinpoint's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Renewal of Motion for Injunctive Relief and Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief are STAYED. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 4/17/12 and filed on 4/18/12, copies distributed to all parties 4/18/12.(ldab, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT Norfolk PINPOINT IT SERVICES, FILED COUR OF VIRGINIA APR 1 8 2012 Division LLC, CLERK. U.S PIS'RICT COURT NGR=OI K VA Plaintiff, Civil v. ATLAS IT EXPORT Action No. 2:10cv516 CORP., Defendant. OPINION This matter is before and the Services, LLCs Strike Defendant's Court ("Plaintiff's") Motion to Modify Stay, Plaintiffs Renewal IT of Export Pleading Motion the that process. These of Motion presented and Fed. set facts oral forth and P. Modify Stay, (2) Motion regarding Ruling Fees, {4) and defendant on Motion to for Motion Leave Strike to for Atlas to File Plaintiffs After associated memoranda, examining the the Court contentions are adequately not the decisional would 78 (b) ; IT Plaintiff s Relief. legal therefore, below, (5) to Pinpoint a Motion the argument Civ. are, (6) and to Relief; Injunctive motions, Motion Attorney ("Defendant's") for R. for and plaintiff Requesting Injunctive Time the matters reasons for Corp.'s Complaint, finds Motion (1) on Opposition Motion First Out Renewed (3) ORDER E.D. ripe Plaintiff's aid Va. for in Loc. Civ. decision Motion to R. 7 (J) . and for the Modify Stay and Plaintiff's Leave to Motion for Motion File to Pleading Requesting Renewal of a its related Motion to Strike Defendant, a issued and issued an 2010. Docket moved to appear Defendant have of its for is GRANTED; and Injunctive a Default On to pro hac vice on to have the Entry 13, breach of contract the 20, 2010, Becker As a result, Attorneys' U.S.C. § Court Fees 1927 37. In to July on against Motion its order July on of were Court December Defendant Whitaker 2011, 16, finally ("Becker"), and ' Although Defendant conceded that Defendant "is silent on Choice of Law set reimburse and a Becker. Fees, Defendant aside,1 filed Becker against for Attorneys' to granted. Plaintiff Sanctions Defendant was Default Defendant for Motion 22, of which summons Clerk Defendant Amy behalf, limited 2011. also granted on its Defendant's Virginia several respond, against Jane a After December attorney, and Motion History alleging company. failed 8. for Plaintiff's Plaintiff's Relief Plaintiff, complaint Rico Motion STAYED. moved then 35, filed No. Time Defendant's GRANTED; 2010, Puerto Entry of is are DENIED; Factual and Procedural 18, liability company, by Out Motion October are Ruling I. On Strike for separate Docket Plaintiff Plaintiff was Motion a which asked for 28 Nos. the alleged the contract between Plaintiff and and Choice of Forum," Defendant argued that the contract was signed in Puerto Rico and that as a Puerto Rico company without contacts in the Eastern District of Virginia, it "found it extremely onerous to Set Aside respond Default to and PINPOINT'S lawsuit." to Change Venue. Therefore, Docket No. 15. it filed a Motion to dilatory actions causing fees in Plaintiff and Motion legal for to compulsory costs." counterclaim District in Bradford of for the District September in the 14, Code result, on issued his ruling, Docket In in not the the all No. United a before Order pending in on Rico States then filed Judge under Court") of issued Court and 68. As Judge by on Bankruptcy No. Magistrate Court Chapter Bankruptcy Docket this ("PR the motions. Suggestion was a United Magistrate ("Bankruptcy filed the Puerto 2011, had filing in Bankruptcy Virginia. Stay by action of Becker Stillman this against a Court, Defendant. 69. Bankruptcy to Eastern motions actions response, apply a 25, for Rico 2011, that Defendant hearing the Defendant 15, Plaintiff's alleged August filed Puerto September staying on of addition, In 35. and attorneys' District No. in District 36. motions significant independent conducted a of 2011, Eastern and incur response proceedings" the Defendant Bankruptcy the an for opposition Subsequently, timely Becker Docket Stillman No. the as Court memoranda file against Court"). 7 Docket multiplied] District F. to "unnecessarily Sanctions "vexatiously States failing Plaintiff Court, Becker and District against filed seeking seeking could Defendant. a for confirmation partial proceed On Motion to November relief rule 30, Relief that the from on 2011, from stay the the the Stay stay did so sanctions Bankruptcy Court confirmed Debtor, extend on [Defendant], it to anyone January 18, Plaintiff's to that allow for if Pursuant 73. 8, 2011, Court In Motion to to to pursue Modify not automatic stay does Motion, stay sanctions filed does against Docket a 2011, result, one day filed Plaintiff to warranted. Defendant Becker from on Pinpoint's Pinpoint, of 83, Ex. U.S. A. ruling, on the in alone. 75. to In fact, agrees but in that its motion, that the addresses Informative the sanctions No. Plaintiff's only its Stay Docket assertion Becker the monetary claim." No. Opposition In as Modify Becker No. "so automatic proceedings 72. Defendant's later its stay first to Plaintiff s apply 1, No. Motion Docket dispute are a granted enters Docket to allow and proof Court also to Court's against Stay. shield Furthermore, 23, filed sanctions not a the Additionally, ruling favor Puerto Rico, Bankruptcy December not her. file the does the to Defendant Defendant whether its A. automatic and to the Court a Debtor in Plaintiff response, the applied asked Ex. the enter finds the has 74, lift to against of only Bankruptcy Court District . No. Debtor, the Bankruptcy Court this partially Court against December to . one Docket the sanctions . [sic] 2012, Virginia sanction stay not else." Virginia request the and request the "[t]he than has Opposition the filed 14-day a was filed deadline Motion to to Strike on December respond. As Defendant's Opposition responded and a for untimely a with filing. for Memorandum alleging that that could next one be fixed delay in Motion Fees, to with proceed Court, asks the March original Court. a to was although harm of by error open the the Time Strike, password office Court The stay, the filing eight Court's hour Court January Plaintiff Pinpoint's First "proceed Atlas." a to modify in the Motion No. motion, the following filed Docket enjoin Bankruptcy automatic 2012, filed renews motion 6, has District no Motion to that out has to filed Motion rule Docket a for on its No. 82. a hearing on this motion. Plaintiff Relief. the against case to due contends Defendant Pleading Clerk's this the Court the that Bankruptcy Injunctive this was regarding with its 76. Pinpoint's Fees requests on File "suffered the Ruling Attorneys' Lastly, filed a and Plaintiff also also lifting Requesting for until following partially Attorney to No. Id. Additionally, Motion to filing Plaintiff filing." ruling, in Defendant late, Leave Opposition delay not day in the morning. was Motion Docket for 89. filed In on proceedings Bankruptcy for modification on April Court 19, Defendant's the Puerto Renewal this August filed is 2012. stay set and Rico of allow it District Motion motion, 12, request for Plaintiff 2011, and asks Rico in the Puerto to hear Defendant's II. Legal Analysis A. Modification to Automatic Stay of Proceedings The and automatic provides that automatically to a judicial, against the A.H. Robins Co. opportunity It the . is Robbins, 964 . or ." the 788 decision the F.2d F.2d 994, § (4th the or and of 362(a) operate ... 998 proceeding This ensure (4th Cir. not have that it 1986). authority the Fourth the "lift of reorganization." automatic bankruptcy Cir. § 362(a)(1). 362(d), to modify or of § plan U.S.C. 345 action does discretion 342, a U.S.C. continuation debtor" Court 11 11 bankruptcy U.S.C. formulate this or other 11 in for commencement to Citing the found filings "to protect that stay. within . is Piccinin, v. appears held that . . enacted "an . stay "the debtor has has certain administrative, provision was modify stay provision 1995). Circuit judge." It has to stay In re further noted, The judicial requires that enter them grounds error higher be exist may be court, system's need for order and finality of courts having jurisdiction to orders obeyed to until challenge directed as rules to reversed, them. the provide, even A ordering but it if proper challenge court may not for or a be made collaterally court's lack unless it is based on the original of jurisdiction. These principles are firm and long standing. Spartan 1997) Mills (citing v. Bank Celotex of America, Corp. v. 112 F.3d Edwards, 1251, 514 1255 U.S. (4th 300 Cir. (1995)) (emphasis added). requesting that Puerto it Defendant Becker. modify the does stay against Defendant may judicial the must stay of cannot rulings DENY the and where the the the Bankruptcy Plaintiff's Bankruptcy this . Court "to motion Court the stay, Bankruptcy Court will has not in proceed district court the on the Rule on 8002, for the "within does 14 this recognize modification Plaintiff's lifted although Court to rule court Accordingly, GRANT to sits and apply partially Bankruptcy bankruptcy order."2 affirmed, does to the . Court stay Under order the already Court modify itself thus that has Defendant. this the . from Court allow the appeal of the to district" ... stay the dispute, Additionally, sanctions Court Court Bankruptcy not automatic days this Rico. However, the Thus, Motion of the Requesting a Ruling regarding Plaintiff's First Motion for Attorney's Fees.3 Similarly, Motion for Bankruptcy stay to Puerto the regarding Injunctive Court allow Rico is the the Relief, issue Defendant District automatic Plaintiff's stay pending of whether to proceed If the Court. should Motion not be for still to its Bankruptcy modified to of before lift with Renewal the automatic action Court allow the in rules the that Defendant to 2 From Che record it appears Defendant has not appealed the Bankruptcy Court's order to the Puerto Rico District Court and that the time for appeal has expired. 3 A copy of as he 2011 is this the before order will Judge who heard the automatic be sent to Magistrate argument stay was on issued. the Judge original Stillman's motions in chambers, December of proceed motion Thus, in the before this Motion this STAYS Injunctive until Defendant's Rico Court Court for Strike Puerto the Civil Procedure in which to Local Civ. expounds to Local Rule that the P. the . 6(b). time 6(b) of Assoc. an may, the act for be related its of its Motion ruling to on stay. out of Time a party responsive Civ. duplicative. Renewal supplemented a looked the that for to . if file "if Court . P. by Federal upon days motion. 6(d). Rule of with Rule fourteen has extension an R. has P'ship, Rules must cause, be Civ. request the E.D. 7(1) time Va. further relating disfavor." Pioneer U.S. Civil E.D. within the an 380, a Va. may The 395 Servs. (1993). is only because "excusable Ins. Fed. extension act provides specified time." court to Procedure 6(b)(l)(B). characterized 507 done for failed P. of extend lapsed, party determination. Ltd. . the has the Fed. Federal good However, neglect". equitable R. requests will as provides Fed. for issues of Plaintiff's and Defendant's to File file then 7(I). extension Supreme . R. "[w]hen court 6(d), "[a]ny . Motion Court 7(F) (1), 7(F)(1); that Civ. Leave electronically R. motions Plaintiff's and Court, unnecessary for modification Rule of be Bankruptcy request Civil would Relief B. Local District of While Civ. after grant an excusable United v. R. made neglect" Co. time, States as an Brunswick ignorance, mistakes, that by 392. has inadvertence excusable caused at or Relying defined basis for Eagle of (citing 1 by a Eagle court to the the did to party omissions this and *4 § a District a reasonable time period." Inc., (E.D. Va. No. June 6.06(3)(b)). expounded Id. both Controls, at note movant." within specified Practice standard Court "compris[e] moving 41054, Federal the of Integrated LEXIS the strictly control the within Dist. with the neglect faith Moore's limited reasoning, v. US suffice, 20, This is other courts in answers, the by district: a test to party be the merits accrue the Ameribanc Here, Opposition Defendant's leave by answer of to untimely is whether will aid in and whether propounding of file Court action the the to the having party. each the permitting presentation The prejudice rule action of will emphasizes resolved on its .... Sav. 576, in to importance merits have seeks applied party the delay good 2006 When to this Inc. accordance Supp. beyond noncompliance 3:06cv264, this on not "not excusable Fire, 2006) is circumstances demonstration in neglect will 581 Banks, (E.D. Plaintiff to F.S.B. Va. has suffered filing. was Resolution one filed a Motion day on the Motion to late. from merit-based Based Trust Corp., 858 F. 1994). Plaintiff's filing v. to Strike Modify the Plaintiff prejudice as representations Stay has a Defendant's not result made by because alleged of this Defendant that the delay fixed until good faith the and by few a inadvertence excusable to the hours that due mistake, to the Pleading out DENIED of Time is stated above, and Plaintiff's Motion to Leave to Motion File Fees is GRANTED, for Injunctive The Order April to Motion Clerk all a and for Strike of Time on and counsel of is Motion Norfolk, , not for to Strike Motion Relief forward Motion Motion a for Renewal Motion are copy to for Modify Opposition GRANTED, for Motion to for Plaintiff s Attorneys' of to Motion Strike STAYED. of this Opinion and record. IT IS SO ORDERED. n delayed and Defendant's Defendant's Injunctive to was Motion Pinpoint's Plaintiff's DIRECTED of standard the Defendant's out is control malfunction Plaintiff's DENIED, Relief not GRANTED. are Ruling a is Defendant's Stay Pleading Requesting Plaintiff's the was little neglect the met be Conclusion reasons Modify has and and pleading electronic the to beyond not there Defendant Plaintiff's is could finds Excusable Defendant Thus, Opposition Motion of Defendant's an which Court Plaintiff. For the the part IV. Stay error circumstances neglect. File password the considering or Defendant's Leave on a morning, on extreme Defendant, to following effect to only due effort prejudicial limited was / ^, ib^W^T 2012 Mark S. Virginia United 10 States Davis District Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
