Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. CAREY, 2:05-cv-02176-MCE. (2011)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20110818b73 Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2011
Summary: ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO RESPOND TO UNITED STATES' MOTION TO ALLOW PURCHASER TO POSSESS BELLA VISTA PROPERTY PENDING CONFIRMATION OF SALE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge. The United States has requested the Court to shorten the time in which to respond to the United States' Motion to Allow Purchaser to Possess Bella Vista Property Pending Confirmation of Sale. The United States' request is adequately supported by the Declarations of Patricia Welch, Jennifer Peterson, Douglas McDonald,
More

ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO RESPOND TO UNITED STATES' MOTION TO ALLOW PURCHASER TO POSSESS BELLA VISTA PROPERTY PENDING CONFIRMATION OF SALE

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.

The United States has requested the Court to shorten the time in which to respond to the United States' Motion to Allow Purchaser to Possess Bella Vista Property Pending Confirmation of Sale. The United States' request is adequately supported by the Declarations of Patricia Welch, Jennifer Peterson, Douglas McDonald, David Barbearo, and Adam Strait already in the record, as set forth in the Application, and by the fact that the United States' expected recovery from the sale of the Bella Vista Property is being diminished by its inability to confirm the sale. Furthermore, the United States' Motion does not seek to restrict the rights of any occupant of the Bella Vista Property, nor any party, because the Court's previous Orders have directed the occupants to leave the premises and have given the right of possession of the Bella Vista Property to the United States.

Therefore, and for good cause shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The hearing on the United States' Motion to Allow Purchaser to Possess Bella Vista Property Pending Confirmation of Sale shall, unless it is removed from the oral argument calendar pursuant to Local Rule 230, be heard on Thursday, August 18, 2011, at 2:00 p.m.; and

2) Any oppositions to the Motion shall be due no later than Tuesday, August 16, 2011.

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