Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC, 2:13-cv-02093-TLN-DAD. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150203a38 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jan. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2015
Summary: JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"), on the one hand, and Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays"), Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine, and Ryan Smith (collectively, the Individual Traders), on the other hand, (together the "Parties") by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: WHEREAS, FERC filed a "Petition For An Order
More

JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC"), on the one hand, and Barclays Bank PLC ("Barclays"), Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine, and Ryan Smith (collectively, the Individual Traders), on the other hand, (together the "Parties") by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, FERC filed a "Petition For An Order Affirming The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's July 16, 2013 Order Assessing Civil Penalties Against Barclays Bank PLC, Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine, And Ryan Smith" (the "Petition") in this action on October 9, 2013;

WHEREAS, Barclays and the Individual Traders filed Motions (A) to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, to Transfer to the Southern District of New York; and (B) to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted (the "Motion to Dismiss") in this action on December 16, 2013;

WHEREAS, FERC filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on February 14, 2014 and Barclays and the Individual Traders filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss on March 21, 2014;

WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, the Court issued a Request for Oral Argument on the Motion to Dismiss setting the hearing date for February 12, 2015 at 2:00 PM but invited the Parties to confer and propose a different date to the Court if that date is not available for the Parties;

WHEREAS, some but not all of the Individual Traders' counsel are available to attend the hearing in this matter scheduled for February 12, 2015;

WHEREAS, counsel for Barclays has consulted with the Court and understands that the Court is alternatively available to hear this matter on February 26, 2015 at 2:30 PM;

WHEREAS, the parties' have conferred and determined that counsel for all Parties are available on February 26, 2015;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the Parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, subject to the approval of the Court, that the hearing in this matter set for February 12, 2015 at 2:00 PM be continued until February 26, 2015 at 2:30 PM.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and for good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that the hearing in this matter set for February 12, 2015 at 2:00 PM is continued until February 26, 2015 at 2:30 PM.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer