Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00291/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00291-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE FLORES, an individual, and )

CONNIE FLORES, an individual, ) 

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

EMERICH & FIKE, a professional )

 corporation, et al., )

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 05 - CV - 0291 AWI DLB

ORDER VACATING JUNE 18, 2007

HEARING DATE

On May 4, 2007, Defendants Dennis Hagobian, Victoria Hagobian, the Dennis Hagobian

Residential Trust, the Victoria Hagobian Residential Trust, Yosemite Technologies, Inc., and

Rod Christensen (“Hagobian Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 7,

2007, Defendants Sandy L. Vartan, Judith Yeramian, the Judith Mary Yeramian Family Trust,

and the Lee Yeramian Exempt QTIP Trust (“Yeramian Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss

the complaint. On May 7, 2007, Defendants Russell Davidson and W.D. Farming LLC joined

the motion to dismiss filed by the Hagobian Defendants. The Defendants originally noticed

their motions for hearing to be held on June 4, 2007 before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger. 

On May 17, 2007, Judge Wanger continued the hearing to June 18, 2007, pursuant to the parties’

stipulation. On June 6, 2007, Judge Wanger related this action to other actions pending before

the undersigned and reassigned this action to the undersigned. Judge Wanger’s order did not

change the hearing date for Defendants’ motions.

Case 1:05-cv-00291-AWI -DLB Document 293 Filed 06/14/07 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

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), Plaintiffs were required to file either an opposition or a

notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motions no later than June 4, 2007. Plaintiffs failed to

do so. On June 7, 2007, Plaintiff Joe Flores did file a late opposition, which Plaintiff Connie

Flores joined. 

Due to Plaintiffs’ failure to file a timely opposition or notice of non-opposition, they are

in violation of the Local Rules, and Plaintiffs are not entitled to be heard at oral argument in

opposition to the motion. See 78-230(c). In addition, the court has reviewed Defendants’

motions, the late opposition, reply brief, and the applicable law, and has determined that the

motions to dismiss are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-230(h). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the previously set hearing date of June 18,

2007, is VACATED, and no party shall appear at that time. As of June 18, 2007, the court will

take the matter under submission, and will thereafter issue its decision. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00291-AWI -DLB Document 293 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 2