Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. ACDF, LLC, et al

Filing 113

STIPULATION and ORDER Between Receiver and Maricopa Defendants to Extend Time for Filing of Replies in Support of Motion for Approval of Sale Procedures, signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on March 5, 2025. Pursuant to the stipulation of the Receiver and Maricopa Defendants, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that deadline for the Receiver and other parties to file replies to the Statement is extended, from March 1, 2025, to March 6, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. (Deputy Clerk OFR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 ACDF, LLC, a California limited liability 13 company, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ? Affects All Cases ? Affects Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. ACDF, LLC, et al., 1:24-cv-01261 ? Affects Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. FNF Farms, LLC, et al., 1:24-cv-01226 ? Affects Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. C & A Farms, LLC, et al., 1:24-cv-01230 ? Affects Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Maricopa Orchards, LLC, et al., 1:24cv-01231 ? Affects Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. v. Kamm South, LLC, et al., 1:24-cv01232 ? Affects Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. v. Manning Avenue Pistachios, LLC, et al., 1:24-cv-01233 Case No. 1:24-cv01233 ? Affects Brighthouse Life Ins. Co. v. ACDF, LLC, et al., 1:24-cv-01235 ? Affects MetLife Real Estate Lending, LLC v. Panoche Pistachios, LLC, et al., 1:24-cv-01241 Lead Case No. 1:24-cv-01261-KES-SAB Consolidated with Case Nos: 1:24-cv-01226; 1:24-cv-01230; 1:24-cv01231; 1:24-cv-01232; 1:24-cv-01233; 1:24cv-01235; and 1:24-cv-01241 STIPULATION AND ORDER BETWEEN RECEIVER AND MARICOPA DEFENDANTS TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING OF REPLIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SALE PROCEDURES 1 Phillip Christensen, the Court-appointed Receiver in the above captioned case (the 2 “Receiver”), and the Maricopa Defendants (as defined in the Statement of Position in Response to 3 Ex Parte Application for Approval of Sale Procedures, Doc. 106 (the “Statement”)) hereby 4 stipulate as follows: 5 6 Background 1. On February 19, 2025, the Receiver filed the Receiver’s Motion for Approval of 7 Sale Procedures, Doc. 101 (the “Motion”). 8 2. The Court set the Motion for hearing on March 3, 2025, with oppositions due by 9 February 26, 2025, and replies due by March 1, 2025. 10 3. The Statement was filed by the Maricopa Defendants on February 26, 2025. 11 4. On February 27, 2025, the Court sua sponte continued the hearing on the Motion to 12 March 10, 2025. 13 5. The Receiver and the Maricopa Defendants have ongoing discussions relating to 14 the Receiver’s Motion and the Maricopa Defendants’ Statement. 15 6. In light of these facts, the Receiver and Maricopa Defendants agree that the 16 deadline for parties to file replies to the Statement should be extended from March 1, 2025 to 17 March 6, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 Stipulation 1. Subject to the Court’s approval, the Receiver and Maricopa Defendants, through 3 their undersigned counsel, agree that the deadline for the Receiver and other parties to file replies 4 to the Statement is extended, from March 1, 2025, to March 6, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. 5 6 DATED: March 3, 2025 SAUL EWING LLP 7 8 By: ZEV SHECHTMAN Attorneys for Phillip Christensen, as Receiver 9 10 11 12 DATED: March 3, 2025 KELLER BENVENUTTI KIM LLP 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 By: JANE KIM Attorneys for Maricopa Defendants 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to the stipulation of the Receiver and Maricopa Defendants, IT IS HEREBY 3 ORDERED that deadline for the Receiver and other parties to file replies to the Statement is 4 extended, from March 1, 2025, to March 6, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: March 5, 2025 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?