Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00836/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00836-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE ) 2:04-cv-0836-GEB-JFM

COMPANY OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

)

v. )

)

MBA CONSTRUCTION, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

 )

On August 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Application for Right

to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment, or in

the Alternative, Application for Temporary Protective Order

(“Application”) and a Request for Shortened Time on the Application. 

Plaintiff requests that its Application be granted and a right to

attach order be issued either on the basis of the papers filed, or

that the matter be heard on August 29, 2005. Plaintiff contends

“[s]hortened time on this matter is warranted on the basis of the

declarations filed” and since “Defendants have failed to abide by this

Court’s Collateral Order . . . despite several repeated demands by

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 63 Filed 08/12/05 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

Plaintiff.” (Pl.’s Req. for Shortened Time at 2.) Although

Plaintiff’s counsel, Kirsten A. Roe, filed a declaration, the

declaration does not “show[] a satisfactory explanation for the need

for the issuance of [an order shortening time] and for the failure of

counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from

other counsel or parties in the action,” as required by Local Rule 6-

144(e). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to shorten time is denied, and

Plaintiff’s Application will not be heard on August 29, 2005. 

Further, Plaintiff’s Application requests that a “temporary

protective order [restraining Defendants from transferring, hiding,

selling, or otherwise dissipating any property or assets] be granted

immediately pending the hearing on [Plaintiff’s] application for writ

of attachment.” (Application at 15.) Plaintiff contends the

temporary protective order is warranted because “Defendants refuse to

furnish the full collateral necessary” and “have made it clear that

they do not intend to pay their debts.” (Id.) However, Plaintiff’s

conclusory arguments do not support a finding that Plaintiff “would

suffer great or irreparable injury . . . if the temporary protective

order were not issued.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 486.010(b). 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a temporary protective order is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 11, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00836-GEB -JFM Document 63 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 2