Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-20/pdf.json

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

---

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.

PETRO MIKOLAYEVICH KIRITCHENKO, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-99-3073 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

SUPPLEMENT RECORD BY

REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENT FROM

ANOTHER DISTRICT

(Docket No. 979)

Before the Court is the administrative motion filed March 17, 2006 by plaintiff

Universal Trading & Investment Co. (“UTI”) to supplement its briefing on the pending

motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Peter Kiritchenko, Izabella Kiritchenko,

and Ludmilla Kiritchenko (collectively, “Kiritchenko defendants”). In particular, UTI seeks to

supplement the record by registering a judgment in favor of UTI and against United Energy

Systems of Ukraine (“UESU”), entered July 7, 2005 by the United States District Court for

the District of Massachusetts (“UESU judgment”). UTI further seeks to supplement the

record with the declarations of Dr. Youry A. Lambert, Dr. W. Scott Thompson, and Dr.

Warren Coats, filed February 27, 2006 in support of registration of the UESU judgment. 

The Kiritchenko defendants have filed opposition to the motion; no reply has been filed.

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 999 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d), in relevant part, provides that “once a reply is filed no

additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval.” See

Civil L.R. 7-3(d). Here, UTI relied on the UESU judgment in UTI’s briefing filed January 20,

2006 in opposition to the Kiritchenko defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Consequently, because the UESU judgment and UTI’s arguments with respect to the legal

effect of that judgment already are part of the record on the motion for summary judgment,

there is no need to “supplement” the record with the UESU judgment.

With respect to the above-referenced declarations, UTI has submitted no evidence

as to why those declarations could not have been submitted earlier in the summary

judgment proceedings. Consequently, UTI has failed to show good cause for

supplementing the summary judgment record therewith.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record is hereby DENIED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 999 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2