Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03632/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-03632-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL TRADING AND

INVESTMENT CO.,

Plaintiff and Judgment

Creditor,

 v.

DUGSBERY INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-03632 CRB

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND

RETURNING MATTER TO ACTIVE

STATUS

I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

On August 4, 2010, Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Universal Trading and

Investment Company filed a Motion for “Administrative Relief” pursuant to Local Rule 7-11

to have the stay in this matter lifted because the Court’s reason for imposing the stay – the

pendency of a related action in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

(Case No. 06-cv-80086) – is no longer present. (Dkt. 93.) 

Defendants Lazarenko, Dugbery, Inc., and Lady Lake Investment Corp. oppose the

Motion on the ground that it should have been filed as a substantive motion pursuant to Local

Rule 7-2. Specifically, Defendants argue that (1) there has been an unreasonable delay of

eight months between the end of the related case on appeal and the filing of the instant

Motion to lift the stay and (2) they should have the opportunity to fully brief the possible

applicability of Federal Rule 41(b).

Case 3:08-cv-03632-CRB Document 95 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2008\3632\Order Lifting Stay.wpd 2

Defendants’ arguments against lifting the stay are not well taken. They do not dispute

that the reason for the stay is no longer present, and their concerns about Plaintiff’s delay in

re-starting this matter did not cause them to move for dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) as an

affirmative matter. Moreover, the stay has been lifted twice at the behest of Plaintiff since

the 9th Circuit mandate issued on December 2, 2009 for the purpose of dismissing specific

Defendants. Remaining Defendants had no reason to believe Plaintiff had entirely

abandoned his case, and the delay is not so long as to cause them to be unduly prejudiced by

the recommencement of the action.

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Administrative Relief (Dkt. 93) is GRANTED, the

stay is lifted, and this matter is now ACTIVE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03632-CRB Document 95 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2