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 ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

T-MOBILE USA, INC., 

Plaintiff,

v.

ANITA WALTS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-0187L

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

This matter comes before the Court on Anita Walts’ motion for reconsideration of

the Court’s March 2, 2006 Order denying T-Mobile’s motion for a temporary restraining

order, scheduling a March 28, 2006 hearing on T-Mobile’s motion for a preliminary

injunction, renoting Walts’ pending dispositive motions, and permitting T-Mobile to

conduct limited discovery in advance of the preliminary injunction proceedings. (Dkt.

#14, the “Order”). Walts requests that the Court stay discovery and the preliminary

injunction motion pending resolution of her dispositive motions. 

With her motion for reconsideration, Walts has filed a “stipulation” in which she

and her husband agree that they “will not transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of any

property or assets derived, directly or indirectly, from any money, property, assets,

Case 2:06-cv-00187-RSL Document 18 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 For that reason, the Order stated, “If these deadlines impose an undue burden on

the parties, they may stipulate to reschedule the preliminary injunction hearing for a date

in mid-April or later.” Order at p. 4 n.1.

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 2

service or things of value allegedly provided by Linco Contractors, Ltd., Ismael Espudo

or any agent of Linco or Espudo . . . ” until the Court rules on the pending dispositive

motions, rules on the motion for a preliminary injunction, or April 15, 2006, “whichever

date is earlier.” (Dkt. #17). The interests of judicial economy and efficiency would be

best served if the Court could rule on Walts’ pending dispositive motions, then, if

necessary, the parties and the Court could brief and rule on the motion for a preliminary

injunction. However, Walts’ agreement not to dispose of the assets extends only until

April 15, 2006, and the Court is not available to reschedule a hearing on the motion for a

preliminary injunction during the first two weeks of April.1

 Therefore, unless Walts

extends the date in the stipulation, the Court will not alter the pending deadlines because

T-Mobile is entitled to expeditious consideration of its motion for a preliminary

injunction.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a stipulation, or if they cannot

agree, supplemental memoranda, addressing the following proposal: Walts’ pending

dispositive motions will remain noted for March 17, 2006; Walts will agree not to dispose

of the assets while the dispositive motions are pending, or in the event the Court denies

those motions, until the Court rules on T-Mobile’s motion for preliminary injunction; the

dates set forth in the Order for responding to T-Mobile’s discovery requests and for filing

memoranda regarding T-Mobile’s motion for preliminary injunction shall be continued

for four weeks from the dates set forth in the Order; the parties will contact the Court to

schedule a new hearing date for the motion for a preliminary injunction in late April or in

Case 2:06-cv-00187-RSL Document 18 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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 ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 3

May 2006. The supplemental memoranda must be filed by 12:00 p.m. on March 13,

2006 and shall not exceed 3 pages in length.

DATED this 10th day of March, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:06-cv-00187-RSL Document 18 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 3