Zhenhua Logistics (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. v. Metamining, Inc. et al

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File; denying 44 Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider shall be construed as a new or successive motion for a writ of attachment. The motion shall be heard on August 1, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ZHENHUA LOGISTICS (HONG KONG)
CO., LTD.,

No. C-13-2658 EMC

9
Plaintiff,
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
METAMINING, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SHORTEN TIME

12
Defendants.

(Docket Nos. 37, 44)

13
___________________________________/
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration which it asks the
Court to hear on shortened time.
As a preliminary matter, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s attempt to characterize its ultimate

19

request for relief as a motion to reconsider. Contrary to what Plaintiff argues, it is not really asking

20

the Court to reconsider its attachment order of June 20, 2013. Rather, Plaintiff is asking the Court to

21

issue a new writ of attachment for additional money. See generally Deauville Restaurant, Inc. v.

22

Superior Court, 90 Cal. App. 4th 843 (2001) (deeming second motion for a writ of attachment as a

23

new or renewed motion rather than a motion for reconsideration). The Court therefore DENIES

24

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration but shall construe Plaintiff’s motion

25

to reconsider as a new or successive motion for a writ of attachment.

26

To the extent Plaintiff asks for that motion – so construed – to be heard on shortened time,

27

that request for relief is also DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to establish the urgency of the motion. It

28

is asking for relief based on letters that are dated August 2012. Plaintiff could have made a demand

1

of Metamining earlier – indeed, before the hearing on its first motion for a writ of attachment and a

2

temporary restraining order – but it did not. Nor did Plaintiff make any mention of the issue to the

3

Court at that hearing. Furthermore Metamining has articulated a legitimate basis for needing more

4

time than contemplated by Plaintiff to respond to the motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion shall

5

be subject to the regularly noticed briefing schedule as provided for by the Civil Local Rules. The

6

motion shall be heard on August 1, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

7

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 37 and 44.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: June 28, 2013

12
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2