In Re: SK Foods, LP

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/4/12 RESETTING hearing on 4 Ex Parte Application for 4/18/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4 (LKK) before Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The temporary stay previously entered in this matter is CONTINUED until further order of this court. The continuance is necessitated by several factors (as more specifically outlined within the image of this document). (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

In re:

9

SK FOODS, L.P., a California
limited partnership, et al.,

10
Debtors.
11
12

BRADLEY D. SHARP, Chapter 11
Trustee,

CIV. NO. S-12-0775 LKK

13
Appellant,

O R D E R

14
15
16

v.
SSC FARMS 1, LLC, et al.,
Appellees.
/

17
18

The hearing on this matter is REMOVED from the court’s regular

19

law and motion calendar of April 9, 2012.

20

specially set for hearing on Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 10:00

21

a.m. in Courtroom Four. All parties interested in this motion must

22

appear in person for the hearing. No further briefing is permitted

23

in this matter.

24

matter is continued until further order of this court.

25

continuance is necessitated by several factors.

26

The matter is now

The temporary stay previously entered in this
The

First, appellants seek an “emergency” stay of a Bankruptcy
Court reconsideration order that does not compel them to do

1

anything or to refrain from doing anything; it simply denies their

2

motion for reconsideration.

3

Trustee in his opposition, to guess about which order appellants

4

actually want stayed.

This has forced this court, and the

5

Second, appellants have failed to submit to this court the

6

bankruptcy court order denying their motion for a stay pending

7

appeal (or even to make reference to it), the final reconsideration

8

order itself (including instead a string of seven “Tentative

9

Rulings” and continuation orders in its appeal papers), the order

10

on which reconsideration was denied, the order of contempt (which

11

is the predicate for the “emergency”), or any other relevant orders

12

or documents, thus forcing the court to pore over 679 docket

13

entries from the Bankruptcy Court in search of the relevant orders

14

and documents.

15

Third, the failure of the asserted holder of the privilege at

16

stake here – defendants in this case – to participate in the motion

17

that purports to seek “emergency” protection for its own attorney-

18

client privilege, adds an additional level of uncertainty to the

19

determination of this matter.

20

court to wonder if appellants and defendants plan a continuation

21

of the “tag team” delay tactics the Bankruptcy Court found they had

22

engaged in prior to this appeal, and which so exasperated that

23

court.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED:

In addition, this absence leads the

April 4, 2012.

26
2