United States v. RAJMP, Inc.

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No.: 3:17-cv-515-AJB-DEB 10 ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING JOINT ) MOTION TO STAY AND 12 v. ) ADMINISTRATIVE 13 ) CLOSURE OF THE CASE RAJMP, INC.; JOAN M. POLITTE; ) 14 MERRILL LYNCH BUSINESS; ) 15 FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; ) CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY; ) 16 TBC CORPORATION; ) 17 SC TELECOM, LLC; WELLS FARGO ) 18 BANK, N.A.; PACIFIC WESTERN ) BANK; OUTFRONT MEDIA, INC.; ) 19 HALLE PROPERTIES, L.L.C.; ) 20 POFACO, INC.; COUNTY OF; ) SAN DIEGO; MIDAS REALTY ) 21 CORPORATION; KELLY M.; ) 22 POLITTE as the Personal ) Representative of the ESTATE OF ) 23 ROBERT A. POLITTE; TED R. ) 24 POLITTE as the Personal ) 25 Representative of the ESTATE OF ) ROBERT A. POLITTE, ) 26 ) 27 Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) 28 Having considered the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 272), the 2 || record contained herein, and for good cause having been shown, IT IS HEREBY 3 || ORDERED THAT: 4 1. The Joint Motion is GRANTED; 5 2. This action is stayed. 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY 7 || CLOSE this case. The decision to administratively close this case pending 8 || execution of the settlement agreement does not have any jurisdictional effect. See 9 || Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 2005) (‘An order administratively 10 || closing a case is a docket management tool that has no jurisdictional effect.’’). 1] 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: December 22, 2020 , 8 Hon, Anthony J Heatia 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28