Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-73/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 & INVESTMENT

CO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 KIRITCHENKO ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-99-03073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY RELEASE OF

ATTACHMENTS PENDING

RESOLUTION OF MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR

FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

ORDER AND TO EXCLUDE TIME

FROM COMPUTATION

Plaintiff Universal Trading Co. (“Plaintiff”) has moved yet again to prevent the release of

attachments at issue. Plaintiff previously requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this

Court’s December 7, 2007 Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Release of Attachments, which

the Court denied. Plaintiff now seeks to stay this Court’s order releasing the attachments pending

resolution of its post-trial motions pending before the District Court. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

The District Court issued an order on January 10, 2008 denying Plaintiff’s various post-trial

motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a stay pending resolution of its post-judgment motions

is now moot. Plaintiff also asks that the Court declare that the attachments at issue be extended to

five years. However, this request is also DENIED as moot, because said attachments have already

been released.

Finally, Plaintiff also seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants’ transfer or

dissipation of assets without Court order. Because the District Court already denied Plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunction, this Court will not grant Plaintiff’s request for a temporary

restraining order. Docket No. 1786 at 5-7. In addition, this request is merely an attempt to obtain

reconsideration of this Court’s prior orders regarding the attachments. Finally, given the District

Court’s prior orders finding that it lacks standing, Plaintiff has not established a strong likelihood or

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1793 Filed 01/29/08 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

2

probable success on the merits.

In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Dated: January 29, 2008

______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1793 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 2