Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01058-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ST VENTURES, LLC, a Utah 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KBA ASSETS AND ACQUISITIONS, 

LLC, a Nevada Corporation; BEN 

PENFIELD, an individual; ASSET 

PLACEMENT LIMITED a UK 

Corporation; SUSAN GEORGINA 

GILLIS, an individual; PAUL 

WINDWOOD, an individual; BANK 

OF AMERICA, N.A., a national 

banking association; and DOES 1 

through 50, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:12-CV-1058-LJO-SMS

INFORMATIONAL ORDER RE: 

DECEMBER 4, 2013 INFORMAL 

STATUS CONFERENCE 

On December 4, 2013, an informal status conference was held, in chambers and off the 

record, before Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder. Douglas Dollinger appeared telephonically for 

Plaintiff. Alonzo J. Gradford was present for Defendants KBA Assets and Acquisitions, LLC, a 

Nevada Corporation, and Ben Penfield, an individual. 

Two matters were scheduled to be heard, the Initial Scheduling Conference and a motion to 

quash. The Court vacated both matters. Though mindful that the complaint was filed in June, 2012, 

the Court found that the case remains extremely disorganized and that a useful scheduling order 

cannot be crafted until a number of issues have been clarified. The Court therefore issues the 

following guidance: 

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 73 Filed 12/06/13 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

2 

(1) Alonzo Gradford’s status as counsel is unclear from the record. The Court ORDERS 

Gradford to file a notice of appearance no later than Monday, December 9. 

(2) Although there was previously some confusion as to whether Defendants Gillis and 

Windwood were represented in this case (see docs. 18, 20, 23, 47), Dollinger in July, 2013, clarified 

that he represented Defendants APL, Gillis, and Windwood. See Doc. 55. The Court at that time 

granted Dollinger's request to be substituted as counsel for Plaintiff, based on his representation that 

his clients would promptly file a notice of settlement and that conflicts had been waived 

appropriately. Docs. 55, 56. This notice of settlement has not yet been filed. The Court ORDERS 

that the notice of settlement be filed on or before December 20, 2013. 

(3) Plaintiff indicated that it intends to move to amend the complaint, including naming new 

defendants. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file its motion to amend on or before December 30, 

2013. 

(4) Plaintiff expressed concern that the existing restraining order was unsettled. The Court is 

not aware of any intervening event that would have caused this order to no longer be in effect. See 

Doc. 19: 

“The defendants and all persons acting in concert or participating with them are 

RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from directly or indirectly: a. Transferring, 

selling, disposing of, encumbering, altering, concealing, or removing from the 

jurisdiction of this Court the Bond (collateralized mortgage obligation CUSIP 

#617453AA3); b. Transferring, selling, disposing of, encumbering, altering, 

concealing, or removing from the jurisdiction of this Court the monthly coupon 

payments from the Bond; and c. Transferring, selling, disposing of, encumbering, 

altering, concealing, or removing from the jurisdiction of this Court any assets 

purchased with the monthly coupon payments from the Bond." 

(5) Defendants filed their motion to quash without complying with the meet-and-confer 

requirement of Local Rule 251. Plaintiff, in turn, failed to oppose the motion. The Court asked 

whether Plaintiff was prepared to withdraw its subpoena. Plaintiff replied that it in fact had already 

been sent the documents in question. Plaintiff instead stipulated to an ORDER to not view, use, or 

share these documents and to convey this same admonishment to colleagues who may also have 

seen or accessed these documents. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 73 Filed 12/06/13 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 

(6) The Court will set a new initial scheduling conference after it has reviewed the notice of 

settlement, the motion to amend the complaint, and (should a meet-and-confer not resolve these 

matters) any objections by defendants. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 12/6/2013 /s/ SANDRA M. SNYDER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:12-cv-01058-LJO-SMS Document 73 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 3