Wholesaler Equity Development v. Peter Bargreen, et al
Original Case: 2:20-cv-01095
| Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals | |
| Case #: | 0:21-cv-36010 |
| Type | civil / private |
| Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
| Case Filed: | Dec 09, 2021 |
| Terminated: | Dec 17, 2021 |
| Last checked: Tuesday Dec 21, 2021 12:32 AM PST |
|
Defendant - Appellant
PETER BARGREEN
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellant
CROWN DISTRIBUTING COMPNAY OF EVERETT, INC., a Washington corporation
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellee
WHOLESALER EQUITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
|
Represented By
|
| Docket last updated: 12/21/2021 12:30 AM PST |
| Thursday, December 09, 2021 | ||
| 1 | 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 Preliminary Injunction Appeal. [12311427] (COURT UPDATE: To correct case opening event and terminating briefing deadlines) (HH) [Entered: 12/09/2021 12:30 PM] | |
Att: 1
1 pgs
Docketing Letter
|
||
|
Att: 2
2 pgs
Notice to All Parties and Counsel
|
||
|
Att: 3
1 pgs
Mediation Letter
|
||
|
Att: 4
22 pgs
Case Opening Packet
|
||
| 2 | 2
28
pgs
Filed (ECF) Appellants Peter Bargreen and Crown Distributing compnay of Everett, Inc. EMERGENCY Motion to stay lower court action. Date of service: 12/09/2021. [12311475] 21-36010 (Taylor, Paul) [Entered: 12/09/2021 12:56 PM]
|
|
| 3 | 3
2
pgs
Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): Appellants’ emergency motion to stay the district court’s November 29, 2021 order pending appeal (Docket Entry No. [2]) is denied. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the district court’s order denying appellants’ motion to clarify the preliminary injunction was based upon factual circumstances already addressed by the district court in its February 1, 2021 order, granting injunctive relief which enjoined appellants “from interfering with the liquidating trustee’s assumption of the role of Manager and wind-down of the business....” See Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005) (a motion that merely seeks to relitigate a request for injunctive relief that has already been decided is not a motion to modify an injunction for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of their memorandum. If appellants do not timely comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing on the merits is suspended pending further order of the court. [12312085] (HH) [Entered: 12/09/2021 07:50 PM]
|
|