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
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?