United States of America v. EDF Resource Capital, Inc., et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/8/13 ORDERING that all hearing dates, filing dates and the scheduling conference in this matter are VACATED. When Plaintiff's employees and its counsel are permitted to resume their duties in this case, the parties are DIRECTED to meet-and-confer and submit a joint stipulation setting forth a proposed schedule. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
on behalf of its agency,
U.S. SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION,

16
17

CIV. S-13-1158 LKK/EFB

ORDER

Plaintiff,

14
15

No.

v.
EDF RESOURCE CAPITAL, INC.
and REDEMPTION RELIANCE, LLC,
Defendants.

18
19

Pending before the court in the above-captioned case are (i)

20

proposed intervenor Frank F. Dinsmore’s motion to intervene (ECF

21

No. 68), (ii) Mr. Dinsmore’s motion for a hearing before a

22

district court judge (ECF No. 70), (iii) defendants’ motion for a

23

hearing before a district court judge (ECF No. 62), (iv)

24

defendants’ motion for a hearing pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 3191(d)(1) (ECF No. 63), (v) plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF

26

No. 90), and (vi) an initial scheduling conference. All of these

27

are currently set to be heard on November 4, 2013. (ECF No. 85.)

28
1

1

On October 1, 2013, plaintiff United States of America (on

2

behalf of the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”)) filed a

3

motion for stay on the grounds that (i) funding has lapsed for

4

most Executive branch agencies, and (ii) absent an appropriation,

5

Department of Justice attorneys and SBA employees are apparently

6

prohibited from working on this case. In its moving papers,

7

plaintiff also noted that “[c]ounsel for defendants has

8

authorized the undersigned counsel to state that that the

9

defendants have no objection to this motion.”

10
11

In light of the foregoing, the court hereby orders as
follows:

12

[1] All hearing dates, filing dates, and the scheduling

13

conference in this matter are VACATED.

14
15

[2] When plaintiff’s employees and its counsel are permitted

16

to resume their duties in this case, the parties (including

17

proposed intervenor Frank F. Dinsmore) are DIRECTED to meet-

18

and-confer and submit a joint stipulation setting forth a

19

proposed schedule for (i) hearings on the pending motions,

20

(ii) submission of any opposition or reply briefs that

21

remain due on these motions, and (iii) the initial

22

scheduling conference herein.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED:

October 8, 2013.

26
27
28
2