GILMAN v. BROWN, CIV. S-05-830 LKK/CKD. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140806726
Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. Defendants move for reconsideration of the court's July 23, 2014 order, and have filed an ex parte application for an Order Shortening Time so the motion may be heard on August 4, 2014. Plaintiffs have filed a response. The court's prior order vacated its earlier stay since no party had requested it, but granted defendants the 21-day stay they requested so that they could seek a broader stay from the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 555. The court, having full
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. Defendants move for reconsideration of the court's July 23, 2014 order, and have filed an ex parte application for an Order Shortening Time so the motion may be heard on August 4, 2014. Plaintiffs have filed a response. The court's prior order vacated its earlier stay since no party had requested it, but granted defendants the 21-day stay they requested so that they could seek a broader stay from the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 555. The court, having fully..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
Defendants move for reconsideration of the court's July 23, 2014 order, and have filed an ex parte application for an Order Shortening Time so the motion may be heard on August 4, 2014. Plaintiffs have filed a response. The court's prior order vacated its earlier stay since no party had requested it, but granted defendants the 21-day stay they requested so that they could seek a broader stay from the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 555.
The court, having fully considered the matter, finding no mistake, new evidence, clear error or other grounds warranting reconsideration, and having determined that oral argument on the matter is not necessary, orders as follows:
1. The defendants' application for an Order Shortening Time (ECF No. 557), is hereby DENIED; and
2. Defendants' motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 558), is hereby DENIED;
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
