Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00659/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00659-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 23:1441 Contract Real Estate

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

B.C.N. DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ) NO. 05-CV-0659 GEB (DAD)

a Colorado limited liability )

company, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

) 

CIRBY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,)

a California corporation; )

YOUNG-INGEMANSON, a )

California general )

partnership; 1017 J STREET )

ASSOCIATES, a California )

general partnership; and )

MOUNTAIN VIEW HOLDINGS, LLC, )

a Nevada limited liability )

company, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On May 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Request for Extended

Argument (“Request”) in response to Defendants’ respective motions to

expunge lis pendens. However, Plaintiff does not explain why extended

argument is necessary. It will be decided at the hearing whether

extended argument is “appropriate.” Local Rule 78-230(h).

Further, a portion of the Request is vaguely worded and

could be construed as either seeking an evidentiary hearing or

Case 2:05-cv-00659-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 06/16/05 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

additional time to argue evidence already submitted through

declarations. But Plaintiff fails to explain why the evidence already

submitted needs augmentation. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for an

evidentiary hearing is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00659-GEB-DAD Document 24 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 2