Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-8/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

1

 The Court notes that UTI recently filed a motion to continue the January 27, 2006

hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment to February 10, 2006.

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 VACATING HEARING ON

(1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE

PLEADINGS AND ENTER DEFAULT

AGAINST DUGSBERY, INC. AND

(2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST

DUGSBERY, INC.

(Docket No. 883, 884)

Before the Court is plaintiff Universal Trading & Investment Co.’s (“UTI”) motion to

strike pleadings and enter default against Dugsbery, Inc. (“Dugsbery”), as well as UTI’s 

motion for summary judgment against Dugsbery, each of which motions was filed

December 16, 2005 and noticed for hearing January 20, 2006. On December 30, 2005,

Dugsbery filed a request for a continuance on the grounds that defendants’ motion for

summary judgment on the issue of UTI’s standing, which is currently noticed for hearing

January 27, 2006,1

 will likely be dispositive of UTI’s motions against Dugsbery. 

Additionally, Dugsbery argues that the issues of tracing and forfeiture raised in UTI’s

summary judgment motion against Dugsbery also are pending before the Honorable Martin

Jenkins in U.S. v. Lazarenko, CR-00-0284 MJJ, and will be determined by him at the

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 906 Filed 01/09/06 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

Lazarenko sentencing, which is currently scheduled for March 3, 2006.

The Court agrees that, as a matter of judicial economy, it should not hear the instant

motions until after it rules on defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment on the

issue of UTI’s standing. The Court does not reach Dugsbery’s other arguments at this

time.

Accordingly, the January 20, 2006 hearing on UTI’s motions to strike Dugsbery’s

pleadings and for summary judgment against Dugsbery is hereby VACATED. The Court

will set a new hearing date, if necessary, after it rules on defendants’ motion for summary

judgment on the issue of standing.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 906 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2