Intagio Trading Network v. Blackstocks Investments
Filed 8/28/06 Intagio Trading Network v. Blackstocks Investments CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| INTAGIO TRADING NETWORK, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BLACKSTOCKS INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A112104 (consolidated with A111128) (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 433753) |
Plaintiff Intagio Trading Network, Inc. moves this court for an order dismissing this consolidated appeal as to the corporate entity defendants--Blackstocks Investments, Inc. (a Virginia corporation); Blackstocks Investments, Inc. (a Delaware corporation); Urban Media Development Corporation ( a Delaware corporation); Moneymail.com, Inc. (a Delaware corporation); Blackstocks Development Corporation (a Delaware corporation); and New Media, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)--on the ground that only the individual defendants--Alton Perkins and Loretta Perkins--have filed an opening brief, and the time for filing opening briefs has expired. We shall dismiss the appeal as to the corporate defendants only.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit due to Alton Perkins's and Loretta Perkins's alleged pursuit of a scheme in which they defrauded plaintiff (which operates a barter exchange trading system) and several of its clients. Plaintiff ultimately obtained a default judgment against all defendants and the trial court denied defendants' motion to set aside the default judgment. On July 6, 2005, a notice of appeal was filed on behalf of all defendants, including the corporate defendants.
The trial court thereafter denied defendants' motion to set aside void judgment, and, on October 19, 2005, a second notice of appeal was filed on behalf of all defendants, with an amended notice of appeal filed on behalf of all defendants on January 18, 2006.
On June 20, 2006, this court issued a notice to defendants informing them that if their opening brief was not filed with 15 days, the appeals would be dismissed. On July 6, 2006, Alton Perkins's and Loretta Perkins's opening brief was accepted for filing; they also filed a supplemental brief on July 26, 2006. Both briefs were filed in propria persona.DISCUSSION
The only opening briefs filed in this action were the two filed by defendants Alton Perkins and Loretta Perkins on July 6, 2006; the cover of each brief describes the appealing parties as â€
