Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-2/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 STRIKING LAZARENKO

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO

PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR LIFTING

STAY”

On June 16, 2005, the Lazarenko defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s “Motion

for Lifting Stay.” The Lazarenko Defendants violated General Order 45 and the Court’s

standing orders, however, by failing to deliver to the Clerk’s Office “no later than noon on

the business day following the day that the papers are filed electronically, one paper copy

of each document that is filed electronically . . . marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and . . . clearly

marked with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘Chambers Copy-Do Not File.’” See

General Order 45 § VII.G; see also Standing Orders For Civil Cases Assigned to The

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney ¶ 2.

In an order filed June 20, 2005, the Court ordered the Lazarenko defendants to

immediately submit a chambers copy of their opposition, and warned them that if they failed

in the future to comply with the Court’s order to submit chambers copies of

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 827 Filed 06/24/05 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

electronically-filed documents, the Court would consider imposing sanctions, including, but

not limited to, striking from the record any electronically-filed document of which a

chambers copy had not been timely provided to the Court.

The Lazarenko defendants again have violated the Court’s order by failing to lodge a

chambers copy of their opposition. The Court expects the parties to comply with the

Court’s orders without being repeatedly reminded to do so. Accordingly, the Court hereby

STRIKES the Lazarenko defendants’ opposition from the record, without prejudice to their

filing a new opposition in compliance with General Order 45 and accompanied by a

declaration explaining the reasons for their failure to date to abide by the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2005 

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 827 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2