George Luk et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY 14 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The scheduled hearing on the motion to stay is hereby vacated and taken off calendar. The Parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report, in writing, within 14 days of the resolution of the Writ of Mandamus in state court. (lc). Modified on 7/12/2017 (lc).

Download PDF
O 1 2 3 4 5 United States District Court Central District of California 6 7 8 9 10 11 GEORGE LUK, individually and d/b/a/ 333 LIVE; and L.A. ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, INC., 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case № 2:17-cv-01091-ODW (KSx) ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs, v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY [14] CITY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT BERUMEN; DANA HARRIS; BRIAN PRATT; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. On May 30, 2017, Defendants in this case filed a motion to stay the action pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ Writ of Mandamus in the California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles. (ECF No. 14.) In the motion, Defendants indicated that Plaintiffs did not intend to file an opposition. (Id.) The due date for any such opposition, July 3, 2017, has since passed, and the Court has not received any response from Plaintiffs. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. As such, and for good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay the case pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus. (ECF No. 14.) The scheduled hearing on the motion to stay is hereby vacated and taken off calendar. The parties are 1 ORDERED to submit a joint status report, in writing, within 14 days of the 2 resolution of the Writ of Mandamus in state court. 3 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. July 11, 2017 7 8 9 10 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?