Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05386/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05386-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ULRICH BASTIAN, Insolvency Administrator

for Assets of the TLC, The Learning Company

Deutschland GmbH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BRODERBUND LLC; GORES

TECHNOLOGY GROUP; THE

REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST

AGREEMENT OF ALEC E. GORES;

WIZARD HOLDING COMPANY, LLC;

GTG/WIZARD LLC; GORES HOLDING

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 02-5386 JSW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’

MISCELLANEOUS

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST

TO: (1) LIFT STAY, (2) DECIDE

PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS,

AND (3) SET CASE FOR TRIAL

On February 24, 2006, Defendants filed a miscellaneous administrative request to: (1)

lift the stay, (2) decide the “pending” motion to dismiss filed on April 26, 2004, and (3) set the

case for trial. On April 26, 2004, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third

Amended Complaint or to stay these proceedings pending the resolution of a prior-filed

bankruptcy action going forward in Germany. On June 15, 2005, the Court granted Defendants’

motion and issued a stay. 

Defendants’ request to lift the stay is not a matter properly addressed by an

administrative request. Accordingly, Defendants’ request is DENIED without prejudice to

Defendants’ raising this issue on a properly noticed motion. The Court FURTHER DENIES the

request Plaintiff made for sanctions in opposition to Defendants’ administrative request. 

Finally, the Court notes that while Defendants also request the Court decide the “pending” 

Case 3:02-cv-05386-JSW Document 68 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

2

motion to dismiss, there is no motion to dismiss currently pending. On June 15, 2004, the Court 

granted Defendants’ motion for a stay, which at the time, rendered moot the alternative relief

sought to dismiss the case, and the Court terminated the entire motion. If and when the stay is

lifted in this matter, Defendants may file another motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-05386-JSW Document 68 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2