Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Defendant

___________________________________

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Cross-complainant,

 v.

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Cross-defendants

 /

No. C-07-3962 MMC

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION REQUESTING ISSUANCE

OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Ex Parte Application Requesting OSC Re Alliance Title

Company’s Cessation as Existence,” filed January 7, 2008. Cross-complainant Alliance

Title Company (“Alliance”) has filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied. 

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 56 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 3
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

1

The Court did not rule on the instant application upon its filing, as had been

requested by plaintiffs, because no “statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order

authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion” with respect to the matter presented by the

instant application. See Civil L.R. 7-10 (setting forth limited circumstances in which matter

may be heard on “ex parte” basis). Further, although plaintiffs assert the matter is properly

considered on shortened time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, said Rule pertains only to

“miscellaneous administrative matters.” The instant application, which addresses a

potentially dispositive issue, is not a “miscellaneous administrative matter.” Accordingly,

Alliance’s procedural objections to consideration of the application are well-taken. 

Nevertheless, because Alliance has filed a substantive response to the application, the

Court will consider the merits of the application at this time.

2

“Under California law, a corporation may be dissolved in only two ways: through a

court order for an involuntary dissolution proceeding, or through the filing of a certificate of

dissolution with the Secretary of State in a voluntary proceeding.” Telink, 24 F. 3d at 45.

(internal citations omitted).

2

Having read and considered the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the

application,1

 the Court rules as follows.

Plaintiffs, relying on the declaration of their counsel, assert they have learned that

Alliance has “closed all doors to its estimated 200 offices, did not close out all pending

escrows, and allegedly did not even pay its employees.” (See Pl’s Appl. at 2:12-14.) 

Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order directing Alliance to show that it “still exists.” 

(See id. at 2:2.)

“The capacity of a corporation to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law

under which it was organized.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Under California law, a corporation

may sue or be sued. See American Alternative Energy Partners II v. Windridge, Inc., 42

Cal. App. 4th 551, 559 (1996). Although a corporation loses such capacity when it

“dissolve[s],” see Telink, Inc. v. United States, 24 F. 3d 42, 44-45 (9th Cir. 1994), or has

been suspended by the State for non-payment of taxes, see Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code

§ 23301, here, plaintiffs make no showing suggesting that Alliance has dissolved,2 has

been suspended, or has otherwise lost its capacity to sue or be sued. Moreover, Alliance

has offered, with its opposition to the instant application, evidence that its corporate status

remains that of an “active” corporation. (See Alvarez Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Further, even if

Alliance is not currently conducting any business, Alliance would not, by reason of such

fact alone, have lost the capacity to sue or be sued. See Telink, 24 F. 3d at 44-45

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 56 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

In the event any party believes the circumstances concerning Alliance’s status have

changed, such party may seek appropriate relief at that time.

3

(holding, in applying California law, “defunct” corporation “not currently operating” remains

“corporate entity” with capacity to sue). Under the circumstances, plaintiffs have failed to

show sufficient cause exists to warrant issuance of an order to show cause.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ application is hereby DENIED.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 56 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3