Wiggins v. Housley et al

Filing 5

ORDER REOPENING CASE. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 31, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/31/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 12-05430 WHA DAWN WIGGINS, Plaintiff, v. ORDER REOPENING ACTION BARBARA HOUSELY, et al., Defendants. / 17 18 19 A prior order closed this action on the grounds that it was defective appeal. The action 20 was properly transferred, however, from this district’s bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. Section 21 157(c)(1), which provides that when a bankruptcy court is not empowered to enter a final 22 judgment it must transmit its proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for review 23 and entry of judgment. 24 25 26 Accordingly, the order closing the action in Docket Number 3 is VACATED. The Clerk is directed to REOPEN the action. In the bankruptcy action, defendant Zephyr did not consent to entry of a final judgment 27 by the bankruptcy court. Defendant Zephyr shall file its objections to the judgment of the 28 bankruptcy court in a brief not to exceed ten (10) pages in length by JANUARY 17 AT NOON. 1 Plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any, in a brief of equal or lesser length by JANUARY 31 AT 2 NOON. 3 submission and issue an order. No further reply will be allowed by defendant. The Court will then take the matter under 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: December 31, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 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?