Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jagdipik Rai and Rimppi Rai v. Gmac Mortgage

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


December 13, 2010

JAGDIPIK RAI AND RIMPPI RAI,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

(re: docket #17)

ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On December 11, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a "Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order." See Dkt. #17. Although that three-page motion lacks details, Plaintiffs do note that the 18 property involved in this foreclosure action is "scheduled to be sold at auction on December 21, 2010." The Court denied Plaintiffs' first motion for a temporary restraining order because Plaintiffs: 1) did not provide Defendant notice of the motion; and 2) provided no reason why notice should not be required. See September 27, 2010 Order Denying Plaintiffs' Petition for Temporary Injunction [dkt. #7]. Plaintiffs filed their second motion for a temporary restraining order on the Court electronic filing system (ECF), in which electronic notice was sent to Defendant's counsel.

Accordingly, Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Wednesday, December 15, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101213

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.