United States of America v. Anderson

Filing 73

ORDER VACATING HEARING re 64 First MOTION Instructions to Comply with Court Order filed by Sigurd Anderson; 62 MOTION to Stay the Order granting enforcement of the IRS summons filed by Sigurd Anderson. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 5, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2015)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 14-cv-01932-JST Plaintiff, 5 ORDER VACATING HEARING v. 6 7 SIGURD ANDERSON, Re: ECF Nos. 62, 64 Defendant. 8 9 Before the Court is Defendant Sigurd Anderson’s motion to stay, scheduled for hearing on January 15, 2015. ECF No. 62. Also before the Court is Defendant Anderson’s motion for 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 instructions to comply with the Court's order, scheduled for hearing on January 22, 2015. ECF 12 No. 64. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 13 finds these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearings on these matters 14 are hereby VACATED. 15 If, however, any party advises the Court in writing by no later than two days from the date 16 of this Order that most or all of the argument for its side will be conducted by a lawyer who has 17 been licensed to practice law for four or fewer years, and who has not previously presented 18 argument before this Court, then the Court will reschedule the hearing at a time that is convenient 19 to all parties in order to provide that opportunity. Counsel shall confer with each other, and the 20 party requesting the rescheduling of the hearing shall identify the upcoming available dates on the 21 Court’s calendar at which all counsel are available for the hearing. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 5, 2015 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

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?