Atain Specialty Insurance Co. v. Hernandez

Full title: ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a USF INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 17, 2013

2:13-cv-0530 MCE DAD (E.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013)

Opinion

ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a USF INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff, v. JESSIE HERNANDEZ, dba TARP SERVICES, Defendant. No. 2:13-cv-0530 MCE DAD United States District Court, E.D. California. December 17, 2013

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         On November 19, 2013, defendant Jesse Hernandez filed a motion to quash a subpoena for consumer records and noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on December 20, 2013, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (Dkt. No. 13.) That same day defendant Hernandez filed a motion seeking a stay of these proceedings. (Dkt. No. 17.) The motion to stay is set to be heard before the assigned District Judge on January 23, 2014. (Dkt. No. 32.)

         The resolution of defendant's motion to quash is dependent upon the resolution of defendant's pending motion to stay. In this regard, defendant's motion to quash is premised solely on his argument that this action should be stayed. Defendant's motion to quash, therefore, will be denied without prejudice at this time subject to its renewal if appropriate. In the event the assigned District Judge denies defendant's motion to stay, and defendant believes there remains a valid basis to quash the subpoena in question, defendant may re-notice his motion to quash for hearing before the undersigned.

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's November 19, 2013 motion to quash (Dkt. No. 13) is denied without prejudice.