Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05170/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05170-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Injunction

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

SAN FRANCISCO AESTHETICS AND

LASER MEDICINE INC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PRESIDIO TRUST, et al.

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 07-05170 EDL (MEJ)

ORDER RE: FURTHER BRIEFING

Before the Court is Defendants’ Brief regarding the amounts they claim are owed by

Plaintiffs under the Amended Stipulated Judgment. (Dkt. #133.) The undersigned has reviewed

Defendants’ spreadsheet and the calculations contained therein. (O’Connor Decl. Ex. A, pg. 1, Dkt.

#134.) Although Defendants brief refers separately to amounts that they claim Plaintiffs owe for

rent, SDC, utilities and insurance, Defendants lump the amounts paid by Plaintiffs into a total of

$51,860.87 on their spreadsheet (Part B, Item 3). Thus, it is unclear how the amounts are broken

down by category. Further, it is unclear how Defendants credited Plaintiffs for utility payments

made by check numbers 944, 945, 946 and 947. These checks are listed on the spreadsheet as being

applied over a three month period, July 2008-September 2008, but no breakdown is given as to how

the payments were allocated. Thus, the amounts credited in Part B of the spreadsheet for SDC and

utilities do not appear to correlate to the amounts for those line items listed as due in Part A. 

Additionally, Defendants argue that if the $34,000 rent credit were to be applied starting in October

2008, as suggested by Plaintiffs, rather than applied to the earliest unpaid amounts as Defendants

suggest, the amount of late fees and default interest owed by Plaintiffs would be greater. (O’Connor

Decl. Ex. A, Dkt. #134.) However, Defendants have not provided calculations to support this

argument. 

Case 3:07-cv-05170-EDL Document 145 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

Accordingly, the undersigned ORDERS Defendants to submit further briefing which:

(1) reconciles the lump sum credit for amounts paid by Plaintiffs (Part B, Item 3) with the

line item breakdown in the spreadsheet for payments made by Plaintiffs (Part B, Item 1);

(2) indicates to the undersigned how payments made by each check number listed on the

spreadsheet were allocated (i.e. to rent, SDC, and utilities) and what amount remains owing

for SDC, utilities and unpaid rent; 

(3) provides calculations to support their argument that if the rent credit were applied

beginning in October 2008, rather than January 2008, that late fees and default interest owing

by Plaintiffs would be higher; and

(4) explains what effect the allocation of payments made has on Defendants’ calculations of

late fees and default interest.

Defendants shall not provide any further legal argument - their briefing shall only provide the

calculations and clarifications requested above. The undersigned ORDERS Defendants to submit

this further briefing within five days following issuance of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-05170-EDL Document 145 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 2