Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02192/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYDNEY JAY HALL, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MURAD MUHAMMAD, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-2192 BZ

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ EX-PARTE

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing on plaintiffs' exparte motion is scheduled for June 27, 2005, at 2:00 p.m.,

in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450 Golden

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that all counsel and unrepresented parties

must personally appear at the hearing. In addition to the

motion, the parties should be prepared to answer about the

status of the case such as the following:

1) Who are the plaintiffs and defendants in this case? 

2) Is Emmanuel Pacquiao a plaintiff or defendant?

3) Which parties are represented by which counsel?

Case 3:05-cv-02192-CRB Document 25 Filed 06/23/05 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

4) What is the status of this case and the various

motions before the court?

5) Are other cases involving the same or similar facts

as this case currently pending in state or federal court? 

If so, when were the cases filed, who are the parties, and

what is the status of these cases?

6) Which sections of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 6301 et. seq., do plaintiffs allege

defendants violated?

7) How does this case differ from Sydney Jay Hall v.

Murad Muhammad, et. al., C03-5095 CRB? If it does not, has

a notice of related cases pursuant to Local Rule 3-2 been

filed and why are plaintiffs’ claims under the Muhammad Ali

Boxing Reform Act not precluded by Judge Breyer’s April 16,

2004 order in Hall v. Muhammad, et. al.?

Counsel for defendants shall immediately register for 

E-filing and comply with General Order 45 and consent to or

decline magistrate judge jurisdiction. In view of the

short timing, if Mr. Elorde is in the Phillippines, he may

arrange to appear by phone by contacting my clerk, Lashanda

Scott, at 415-522-2015. 

June 23, 2005

 /s/ Bernard Zimmerman

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\HALL\exparte2.order.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02192-CRB Document 25 Filed 06/23/05 Page 2 of 2