Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Coker et al

Filing 8

ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. JAMES BERT COKER; CAROL ZHANG; HARVEY HOCHAUSER; MARCIE HOCHAUSER, Defendants. / FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, in its capacity as Receiver for INDYMAC BANK, Plaintiff, No. C 09-03732 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER RE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. The request for an order shortening time is granted. A hearing on the application will be held THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009, AT 1:30 P.M., on the condition that plaintiff serves the summons, complaint, application and all supporting papers on defendants by FRIDAY, AUGUST 21, 2009, AT NOON. Any opposition to the application shall be due by THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2009, AT NOON. Any reply brief shall be due MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2009, AT NOON. The application for a temporary restraining order is otherwise denied. The Court is interested to know why relief has not been sought from state court and what points and authorities demonstrate that in the Ninth Circuit, a federal district court has the authority to prohibit transfers as requested. The Court notes that the motion appears to be based on state law, namely the California Civil Code, rather than Rule 65. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2009.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE