-SKO Ciena Capital Funding LLC v. DJR Properties, Inc., et al., No. 1:2009cv01239 - Document 184 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Directing Entry of Final Judgment and Closing Case, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/1/2011. Tax Collector is DISMISSED; The Clerk enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against DJR, SBA, CIT, and Suraj Puri on the third claim; The Clerk enter judgment in favor of SBA and against DJR, Rajendra Ahuja, Jagdeep Singh and Darshan Singh with respect to SBAs cross-claim for breach of contract; and The Clerk close the case. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-SKO Ciena Capital Funding LLC v. DJR Properties, Inc., et al. Doc. 184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 HSBC BANK USA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) DJR PROPERTIES, INC. dba SUPER 8 ) MARIPOSA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 1:09-CV-01239 AWI SKO ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND CLOSING CASE 17 18 19 BACKGROUND On June 25, 2009 Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended 20 Complaint (“FAC”) in Mariposa County Superior Court against Defendants DJR Properties, Inc., 21 (“DJR”), the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”), CIT Small Business 22 Lending Corp. (“CIT”), Singh Corporation, Neil Advani, Suraj Puri, Kawaljit Singh, Harinder 23 Kaur, the Mariposa Public Utility District (“MPUD”), and the Tax Collector of Mariposa County 24 (“Tax Collector”). In the FAC, Plaintiff brought causes of action for (1) Judicial Foreclosure of 25 Real Property; (2) Judicial Foreclosure of Security Interest; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) 26 Appointment of Receiver; and (5) Injunction in Aid of Receiver. The first and second causes of 27 action were brought only against DJR. Causes of action three, four and five were brought against 28 all Defendants. On July 16, 2009, SBA removed the case to this Court. Dockets.Justia.com 1 On November 10, 2009, the SBA filed an amended answer to the FAC and its cross- 2 claims for judicial foreclosure and breach of contract against Cross-Defendants DJR, Rajendra 3 Ahuja, Jagdeep Singh, Gurvinder Aujla, Gurdial Singh, Fairway Body Shop & Sales and Darshan 4 Singh. On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal with respect to Neil Advani. 5 The Court entered an order dismissing Neil Advani on December 21, 2009. 6 On November 16, 2010, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its third cause of 7 action for declaratory relief against DJR, SBA, CIT, Suraj Puri and MPUD. On November 17, 8 2010, SBA moved for summary judgment on its cross-claims for judicial foreclosure and breach 9 of contract against DJR, Rajendra Ahuja, Jagdeep Singh and Darshan Singh. On January 20, 10 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, granted SBA’s motion with respect to its breach of 11 contract claim, and dismissed MPUD from the action. 12 On February 1, 2011, SBA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of Cross-Defendants 13 Gurvinder Aujla, Gurdial Singh and Fairway Body Shop & Sales. The Court granted the 14 dismissal of these Cross-Defendants on February 7, 2011. 15 On February 11, 2011, Plaintiff, SBA, and DJR entered into that certain 16 Stipulation for Dismissal of Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief (the “Stipulation to Dismiss 17 Claims 4 and 5”) seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for appointment of a receiver and an 18 injunction in aid of the receiver. On February 15, 2011, the Court entered an order approving the 19 Stipulation to Dismiss Claims 4 and 5. 20 On February 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal with respect to Singh 21 Corporation and Suraj Puri. On February 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of 22 Dismissal indicating that it had only intended to dismiss Singh Corporation in the Notice of 23 Dismissal. 24 On March 4, 2011, Plaintiff and DJR filed a Stipulation to Dismiss First and Second 25 Claims for Relief against DJR (the “Stipulation to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2”). The Court entered 26 an order approving the Stipulation to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 on March 9, 2011. On April 15, 27 28 2 1 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Kawaljit Singh and Harinder Kaur. The Court entered 2 an order dismissing Kawaljit Singh and Harinder Kaur on April 19, 2011. 3 On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff moved for partial final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of 4 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On May 3, 2011, the SBA also moved for partial final 5 judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). On June 8, 2011, the Court vacated the June 13, 2011 hearing 6 date for Plaintiff and SBA’s motions for partial final judgment and instructed Plaintiff and SBA 7 to file a stipulated judgment or a status report. Subsequently, on June 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a 8 status report with the Court. 9 DISCUSSION 10 1. 11 In the FAC, Plaintiff brought causes of action for (1) Judicial Foreclosure of Real 12 Property; (2) Judicial Foreclosure of Security Interest; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Appointment of 13 Receiver; and (5) Injunction in Aid of Receiver. The first and second causes of action were 14 brought only against DJR and the remaining causes of action were brought against all 15 Defendants. On November 17, 2010, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its third cause of 16 action for declaratory relief against DJR, SBA, CIT, Suraj Puri and MPUD, but not the Tax 17 Collector, Singh Corporation, Kawaljit Singh or Harinder Kaur. The Court granted Plaintiff’s 18 motion on January 20, 2011. Subsequently, Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss the first, second, 19 fourth and fifth causes of action and stipulated to dismiss Defendants Singh Corporation, 20 Kawaljit Singh and Harinder Kaur. 21 Entry of Final Judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s FAC After these dismissals, the only remaining issue is the third cause of action for declaratory 22 relief against the Tax Collector. In the June 22, 2011 status report, Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the 23 Tax Collector from the action. Status Report at 6:4-5. The Court construes this as a request for a 24 voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 25 41(a)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal 26 before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Tax 27 28 3 1 Collector has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this case and it appears that 2 no such answer or summary judgment has been served. Therefore, the Tax Collector is 3 dismissed from this action. 4 In light of the dismissal of the Tax Collector, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in 5 favor of Plaintiff and against DJR, SBA, CIT and Suraj Puri on the third claim for relief pursuant 6 to the Court’s January 20, 2011 order. 7 2. 8 On November 10, 2009, SBA filed cross-claims for judicial foreclosure and breach of 9 Entry of Final Judgment with respect to SBA’s Cross-Claims contract against Cross-Defendants DJR, Rajendra Ahuja, Jagdeep Singh, Gurvinder Aujla, 10 Gurdial Singh, Fairway Body Shop & Sales and Darshan Singh. On November 17, 2010, SBA 11 moved for summary judgment on its cross-claims against DJR, Rajendra Ahuja, Jagdeep Singh 12 and Darshan Singh. On January 20, 2011, the Court granted SBA’s motion for summary 13 judgment with respect to breach of contract and denied SBA’s motion with respect to judicial 14 foreclosure. Subsequently, SBA filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the remaining three 15 cross-defendants, which the Court granted on February 7, 2011. In light of these dismissals, the 16 Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of SBA and against DJR, Rajendra Ahuja, Jagdeep 17 Singh and Darshan Singh with respect to SBA’s cross-claim for breach of contract pursuant to 18 the Court’s January 20, 2011 order. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 21 1. Tax Collector is DISMISSED from the action; 22 2. The Clerk enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against DJR, SBA, CIT, and 23 Suraj Puri on the third claim for relief pursuant to the Court’s January 20, 2011 24 order; 25 26 3. The Clerk enter judgment in favor of SBA and against DJR, Rajendra Ahuja, Jagdeep Singh and Darshan Singh with respect to SBA’s cross-claim for breach of 27 28 4 1 2 contract pursuant to the Court’s January 20, 2011 order; and 4. The Clerk close the case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: 0m8i78 July 1, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
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.
