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)
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?