Century Surety Company v. Mo Foods, LLC et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/5/2013 ORDERING Motion to Stay hearing RESET for 1/13/2014 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; hearing on plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is RESET for 3/10/2014 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. This Order MOOTS 34 Motion, therefore that Motion is DENIED. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

CENTURY SURETY COMPANY, an
Ohio Corporation,
Plaintiff,

8

11
12
13
14
15
16

2:13-cv-01387-GEB-EFB

ORDER

v.

9
10

No.

MO FOODS, LLC, a limited
liability company; MANISH
PATEL, an individual; TMPM,
LLC, a limited liability
company; PRADIP PATEL, an
individual, NEHA PATEL, an
individual; SEAN CANILOA, an
individual; RUBEN MORALES; an
individual; WAYNE PERARANDA;
an individual; DEBORAH
PENARANDA; an individual; and
PATRICK PENARANDA; an
individual,
Defendants.

17
18

Defendants Deborah, Patrick, and Wayne Penaranda filed

19

a stay motion, (ECF No. 48), in which they argue it is related

20

under

21

judgment

22

related

23

authorize the below scheduling decision.1

Local

Rule

motion,
within

230(e)
(ECF

the

to

No.

meaning

Plaintiff’s
31).
of

The
Local

earlier

filed

motions

are

Rule

230(e)

summary

sufficiently
so

as

to

See generally L.R.

24
25
26
27
28

1

This decision could have been made earlier in the proceeding had a party
pointedly addressed in the October 11, 2013 joint status report the need to
schedule staggered hearing dates for the motions for the purpose of having the
parties and the Court conserve resources on the summary judgment motion that
would not have to be expended if the stay movants prevail on the stay motion.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (“[Rules] should be construed and administered to secure
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding.”).

1

1

230(e)

2

continue the hearing on the original and all related motions so

3

as to give all parties reasonable opportunity to serve and file

4

oppositions and replies to all pending motions.”)

(“If

5

a

. . .

related

motion

is

filed,

the

Court

may

Since scheduling staggered hearing dates could still

6

conserve

Court

and

party

resources,

the

hearing

on

the

stay

7

motion is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 13, 2014,

8

and the hearing on Plaintiff’s pending summary judgment motion is

9

continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 10, 2014.

10

Further, this order moots Defendants TMPM, LLC; Pradip

11

Patel; and Neha Patel’s pending motion in which they seek an

12

order continuing or vacating the hearing of Plaintiff’s summary

13

judgment motion, (ECF No. 34); therefore, that motion is denied.

14

Dated:

December 5, 2013

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2