United States of America v. Approximately $35,017 in United States Currency

Filing 31

ORDER re: 17 REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING AND VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 08/24/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2010)

Download PDF
United States of America v. Approximately $35,017 in United States Currency Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 *E-Filed 08/24/2010* IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. C 10-0995 RS ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING AND VACATING HEARING 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 v. $35,017 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant. ____________________________________/ Plaintiff has moved to set aside the Clerk's entry of default. On August 04, 2010, the Ninth Circuit directly addressed the question of a movant's culpability in U.S. v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 Of Yurban S. Mesle, No. 09-55353, 2010 WL 3025014 (9th Cir. Aug. 04, 2010). That case sought to reconcile the two competing conceptions related to the culpability question endorsed within this Circuit. Should the parties wish to discuss the implications of that decision for this case, they may file a brief of no more than three pages of text on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 2, 2010. At that time, the matter will be considered submitted and shall be resolved without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 26, 2010 is vacated. NO. C 10-0995 RS ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: 08/24/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IT IS SO ORDERED. 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 NO. C 10-0995 RS ORDER 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?