Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04946/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04946-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 1 The Court notes that, in the future, if counsel needs to re-notice a hearing,

counsel should simply file a notice with a new hearing date.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WEI-MAN RAYMOND TSE, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-04946 JSW

ORDER CLARIFYING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO SET

ASIDE JUDGMENT

On March 14, 2012, Defendant James Yu filed a motion to set aside the judgment in this

case and noticed it for hearing on April 27, 2012. Because that date was not available for

hearings, Defendant re-filed the motion on March 15, 2012 and set it for hearing on May 25,

2012. However, Defendant did not correctly enter the dates on which the opposition and reply

briefs are due. The Court issues this Order to clarify the correct briefing schedule. Because

Defendant re-filed the motion in its entirety, in accordance with Northern District Civil Local

Rule 7-3(a) and 7-(3)(c), the opposition brief is due on March 29, 2012 and the reply brief is

due on April 5, 2012.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2012 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-04946-JSW Document 182 Filed 03/15/12 Page 1 of 1