Sanai v. Kozinski

N.D. California

Sanai v. Kozinski

DecidedJanuary 13, 2021

Docket4:19-cv-08162

StatusUnknown

This text of Sanai v. Kozinski (Sanai v. Kozinski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanai v. Kozinski, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CYRUS SANAI, Case No. 4:19-cv-08162-YGR 6 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO HOLD 7 Vv. HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS; AND (2) DEFERRING PLAINTIFF’S 8 ALEX KOZINSKI, ET AL., ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ORDER SERVICE BY U.S. MARSHALS 9 Defendants. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 55, 56, 64, 66 11 Following the completion of briefing on the pending motions, the Court has reviewed pro 12 || se plaintiff Cyrus Sanai’s administrative motion requesting a hearing on the pending motion to

13 || dismiss, and motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (See Dkt. Nos. 36 (motion to

14 dismiss), 55 (motion for leave to file first amended complaint), 56 (administrative motion).) The 15 || administrative motion is DENIED. The Court intends to rule on the motions without oral argument, 16 || as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at 17 Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728-29 (9th Cir.

O 4 18 || 1991). 19 The Court further DEFERS Sanai’s administrative motion to order service by the United 20 || States Marshals until the Court rules on the pending motions. 21 This Order terminates Docket Number 56. 22 IT Is SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: January 13, 2021 25 Loypont Hptfflees, 26 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CYRUS SANAI, Case No. 4:19-cv-08162-YGR 6 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO HOLD 7 Vv. HEARING ON PENDING MOTIONS; AND (2) DEFERRING PLAINTIFF’S 8 ALEX KOZINSKI, ET AL., ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO ORDER SERVICE BY U.S. MARSHALS 9 Defendants. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 36, 55, 56, 64, 66 11 Following the completion of briefing on the pending motions, the Court has reviewed pro 12 || se plaintiff Cyrus Sanai’s administrative motion requesting a hearing on the pending motion to

13 || dismiss, and motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. (See Dkt. Nos. 36 (motion to

14 dismiss), 55 (motion for leave to file first amended complaint), 56 (administrative motion).) The 15 || administrative motion is DENIED. The Court intends to rule on the motions without oral argument, 16 || as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at 17 Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728-29 (9th Cir.

O 4 18 || 1991). 19 The Court further DEFERS Sanai’s administrative motion to order service by the United 20 || States Marshals until the Court rules on the pending motions. 21 This Order terminates Docket Number 56. 22 IT Is SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: January 13, 2021 25 Loypont Hptfflees, 26 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sanai v. Kozinski, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanai-v-kozinski-cand-2021.