Estate of Johnson Clark et al v. Horwich et al

Filing 70

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE TO MOTION AND SETTING HEARING. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 3/12/2012. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. C 12-00137 CRB ESTATE OF JOHNSON CLARK ET AL., ORDER DIRECTING RESPONSE TO MOTION AND SETTING HEARING Plaintiffs, v. HORWICH ET AL., Defendants. / 16 17 On March 5, 2012, this Court denied pro se Plaintiff Peter Clark’s application for a 18 temporary restraining order, which asked the Court to freeze all assets related to the Clark 19 Assets, turn over documents, and ban Defendants from taking numerous actions in 20 connection with numerous funds. See Order Denying TRO (dkt. 32). The Court ordered 21 that, if Plaintiff wished to pursue injunctive relief, and/or arbitration, he was to file and 22 notice a motion in conformance with Civil Local Rule 7-2, and to serve that motion on all of 23 the Defendants in conformance with Civil Local Rules 5-5 and 5-6. Id. 24 Plaintiff has now filed two additional motions. The first, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 25 Arbitration, was filed March 8, 2012 and calendared for March 9, 2012. See Motion to 26 Compel (dkt. 60). This filing violates Civil Local Rule 7-2, which requires that motions be 27 noticed for hearing “no less than thirty-five days after service,” and is therefore RE-SET for 28 Friday, April 20, 2012, at 10:00 am. The second, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary 1 Restraining Order, was also calendared for March 9, 2012. See Mot. for TRO (dkt. 59). 2 Although the Court had also ordered that any request for injunctive relief comply with Rule 3 7-2, the Court understands that Plaintiff maintains that there is “tremendous immediacy” in 4 this case. See id. at 3. Accordingly, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Defendants, whom 5 Plaintiff represents that he has served, see Certificate of Service (dkt. 61), to file any 6 opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 14, 2012, and SETS the 7 Motion for a hearing on Friday, March 16, 2012 at 10:00 am. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 12, 2012 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\CRBALL\2012\137\order setting hearing.wpd 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?