Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

Plaintiffs have failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of the application,

or of the Request for Judicial Notice filed in support thereof. Further, plaintiffs have failed

to provide the Court with a chambers copy of any of the various documents plaintiffs

electronically filed on November 30, 2007. Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to immediately

provide the Court with a chambers copy of each document plaintiffs electronically filed on

November 30, 2007 and December 4, 2007. For future reference, plaintiffs are reminded of

the following provision in the Court’s Standing Orders: “In all cases that have been

assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the parties are required to provide for use

in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically. The paper copy

of each such document shall be delivered no later than noon on the day after the document

is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be

delivered to the Clerk’s Office in an envelope clearly marked with the judge’s name, case

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Defendant ___________________________________

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Cross-complainant,

 v.

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Cross-defendants

 /

No. C-07-3962 MMC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT OF

FUNDS

On December 4, 2007, plaintiffs filed an “[Unopposed] Ex Parte Application for

Payment of Funds to IRS Pursuant to Stipulation.”1

 Contrary to the suggestion in its title,

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 42 Filed 12/05/07 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

number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers Copy.’”

2

If plaintiffs believe there is good cause to hear any such motion on shortened time,

plaintiffs may file a motion to shorten time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. A motion to

shorten time, if not stipulated, must be accompanied by, inter alia, a declaration setting

forth with “particularity” the efforts the moving party has made to obtain a stipulation to the

time change. See Civil L.R. 6-3(a).

2

the application is not a stipulation, but rather an effort to enforce an asserted stipulation.

Further, the matter addressed by plaintiffs’ application pertains to the resolution of a

portion of the complaint in interpleader filed by Alliance Title Co. and, as such, is not

appropriate for resolution by an “ex parte” application. Rather, if plaintiffs are unable to

obtain a stipulation from all parties as to the subject payment to defendant Internal

Revenue Service, plaintiffs must file a motion noticed for hearing pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-2.2

Accordingly, the application is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 42 Filed 12/05/07 Page 2 of 2