Securities and Exchange Commission v. Small Business Capital Corp. et al

Filing 302

AMENDED ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS. The original order mistakenly transposed the terms "Plaintiff" and "Defendant." The court has filed this amended order, which replaces and supersedes the original, to prevent any confusion. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/19/2013. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/19/2013: #1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03237 EJD

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

AMENDED ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S
PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

12

Plaintiff(s),
v.

13
14

[Docket Item No(s). 288, 290, 296]

SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL CORP., et.
al.,

15
Defendant(s).
16
17
18
19

/
Regarding Defendant Mark Feathers’ (“Defendant”) pending administrative motions (see
Docket Item Nos. 288, 290, 296), the court orders1 as follows:
1.

The Request for Leave of the Court to Refile Motion for Awarding of Legal Fees

20

(Docket Item No. 288) has been construed as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

21

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9. As so construed, the motion is GRANTED. On or before April 2,

22

2013, Defendant may file a motion for reconsideration of the Order Denying Request for Legal

23

Expenses (Docket Item No. 70), filed September 26, 2012. Any opposition to the motion for

24

reconsideration shall be filed on or before April 12, 2013. Defendant may file a reply to the

25

opposition on or before April 19, 2013, at which time the motion will be deemed submitted for

26

decision.

27
1

28

The original order mistakenly transposed the terms “Plaintiff” and “Defendant.” The court
has filed this amended order, which replaces and supersedes the original, to prevent any confusion.
1
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03237 EJD
AMENDED ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

1

Defendant is advised that the motion for reconsideration must comply with Civil Local Rule

2

7-9, such that Defendant must limit his arguments to the grounds listed in Rule 7-9(b) and must do

3

so without repeating any oral or written argument previously made. Failure to observe the

4

requirements of the Local Rules may result in an order summarily denying the motion.

5

2.

The Request for Leave of the Court to allow Defendant to File a Motion Requesting

6

the Court to Reverse its Prior Approval of the Receiver’s Request for Approval of Bar Claims Forms

7

and Instructions (Docket Item No. 290) has been construed as a motion for leave to file a motion for

8

reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9. As so construed, the motion is DENIED.

9

3.

The Motion for Leave of the Court to File a Lawsuit Action Against the Receiver is

DENIED as leave of this court is not required in order to initiate a separate legal action.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: March 19, 2013
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

CASE NO. 5:12-cv-03237 EJD
AMENDED ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S PENDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS