Maxcrest Limited v. United States of America

Filing 48

ORDER VACATING HEARING re 38 MOTION for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge filed by Maxcrest Limited, 43 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Petition filed by United States of America. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 7, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2016)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MAXCREST LIMITED, Case No. 15-mc-80270-JST Petitioner, 5 ORDER VACATING HEARING v. 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Re: ECF Nos. 38, 43 Respondent. 8 9 Before the Court are Petitioner Maxcrest Limited’s Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 38, and Respondent United States’ 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition, ECF No. 43. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matters suitable for disposition without oral 13 argument. The hearings, currently scheduled for June 16, 2016, are hereby VACATED. 14 If, however, any party advises the Court in writing by no later than two days from the date 15 of this Order that most or all of the argument for its side will be conducted by a lawyer who has 16 been licensed to practice law for five or fewer years, and who has not previously presented 17 argument before this Court, then the Court will reschedule the hearing at a time that is convenient 18 to all parties in order to provide that opportunity. Counsel shall confer with each other, and the 19 party requesting the rescheduling of the hearing shall identify the upcoming available dates on the 20 Court’s calendar at which all counsel are available for the hearing. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 7, 2016 _____________________________________ 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?