Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-4/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 RE: OPPOSITION TO MOTION

TO LIFT STAY

On May 27, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Lifting Stay,” which was noticed for

hearing July 1, 2005. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition to the motion was

required to be filed no later than June 10, 2005. Although no opposition to the motion was

filed by intervenor The United States of America (“government”) by that date, the

government filed, on June 17, 2005, a motion for a continuance of the hearing to allow time

for it to file opposition to the motion. On June 21, 2005, the Court granted the motion,

continued the hearing to July 29, 2005, and ordered the government to file its opposition no

later than July 8, 2005. To date, no opposition has been filed by the government.

Accordingly, the Court deems the motion to be unopposed by the government, and

/ /

/ /

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 832 Filed 07/12/05 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

the Court will consider only the oppositions filed by the Kiritchenko and Lazarenko

defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 832 Filed 07/12/05 Page 2 of 2