Ryan Investment Corporation v. Pedregal De Cabo San Lucas et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge James Ware granting 103 Motion to Shorten Time (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ryan Investment Corp., v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 06-03219 JW ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME ON PLAINTIFF RYAN INVESTMENT CORPORATION'S MOTION TO IMPOSE UNDERTAKING /

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pedregal De Cabo San Lucas, et al., Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Application for an Order Shortening Time On Ryan Investment Corporation's Motion to Impose Undertaking. (hereafter, "Application," Docket Item No. 103.) Plaintiff seeks to shorten the time for hearing Plaintiff's pending Motion to Impose an undertaking. Defendants filed a timely opposition.1 Ordinarily, a motion may not be heard "less than 35 days after service of the motion." Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). However, a court may modify its schedule "for good cause." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). Plaintiff contends that good cause exists for shortening time on the ground that a bond is necessary to protect its favorable judgment since Mexican law prohibits enforcement of a foreign judgment while an appeal is pending. (Application at 1.) Further, Plaintiff contends that, due to the deteriorating economic situation in Mexico, its ability to secure its judgment through a bond will be prejudiced. (Id. at 1-2.)

(Defendants' Oppposition to Plaintiff's Application for Order Shortening Time and, in the Alternative, Opposition to Motion to Impose Undertaking, Docket Item No. 105.)

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff's Motion, the Court recognizes the time-sensitive nature of the request. Thus, Court finds good cause to shorten time for hearing Plaintiff's Motion to Impose Undertaking. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The parties shall appear for a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Impose Undertaking on June 29, 2009 at 9 a.m. (2) (3) Defendants shall file and serve their Opposition on or before June 19, 2009.2 Any Reply shall be filed and served on or before June 24, 2009.

Dated: June 16, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Although Defendants addressed the merits of Plaintiff's Motion to Impose Undertaking in their opposition, the Court will allow Defendants an additional opportunity to oppose the underlying motion, should they wish to do so. 2
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: George J. Berger [e-mail] Mark Aloysius O'Connor [e-mail]

Dated: June 16, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28