Universal Trading & Investment Co v. Kiritchenko et al

Filing 1897

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDERS. Denying 1893 . Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2010)

Universal Trading & Investment Co v. Kiritchenko et al

Doc. 1897

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff Universal Trading & Investment Company's ("UTI") "Notice of Supplemental Authority of November 3, 2010 and Request for Administrative Relief for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the Orders Docket Nos. 1891, 1892" ("Request"), filed November 5, 2010, by which UTI seeks, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 711 and 7-9 and the Court's "inherent power to consider a new appellate authority" (see Request at 3:7-9), leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's orders (1) denying UTI's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Standing, issued September 7, 2007, and (2) denying UTI's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Order Permitting Recovery on Attachment Bonds, issued October 13, 2010. Defendants Peter Kiritchenko, Izabella Kiritchenko, Ludmilla Kiritchenko, Brancross U.S. Holdings, Inc., BRC United States District Court UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation Plaintiff, v. PETRO MIKOLAYEVICH KIRITCHENKO, an individual, et al., Defendants. / No. C-99-3073 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDERS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Property Holdings, LLC, Xanadu Property Holdings, LLC, ABS Trading, Inc., and Michael Menko have filed opposition, in which said defendants, in addition, request sanctions be imposed against UTI under Rule 7-9(c). In its prior orders denying UTI's motions for reconsideration, the Court set forth in detail the requirements that any such request must meet. UTI's instant Request once again fails to meet those requirements or otherwise to show cause warranting reconsideration. Although, as defendants point out, the recent decision on which UTI relies, see U.S. v. Lazarenko, No. 08-10185, 2010 WL 4323404 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2010), is cited by UTI as support for largely the same arguments this Court previously has found unpersuasive, the Court finds sanctions are not warranted. Accordingly, UTI's Motion is hereby DENIED, and defendants' request for sanctions is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2010

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2