Sangerman et al v. Theriault Enterprises Inc

Filing 54

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying as moot 48 Motion to Enforce Judgment. (rmwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFF TO CONDUCT A KEEPER LEVY--No. C-05-4183 RMW TER E-FILED on 8/21/09 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MARIA SANGERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THERIAULT ENTERPRISES INC., et al., Defendants. No. C-05-4183 RMW ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFF TO CONDUCT A KEEPER LEVY [Re Docket No. 48] At the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for an order authorizing the Sheriff to conduct a keeper levy pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §700.070(a), plaintiff's counsel advised the court that the motion has been rendered moot by the sale of defendant's business franchise. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is denied as moot. DATED: 8/21/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Adam Wang James Dal Bon Counsel for Defendants: Robin Kubicek adamqwang@gmail.com jdblaw@earthlink.net robinkubicek@sbcglobal.net Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 8/21/09 TER Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SHERIFF TO CONDUCT A KEEPER LEVY--No. C-05-4183 RMW TER 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?