From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Wanland

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Nov 12, 2015
2:13-cv-2343-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015)

Opinion


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD M. WANLAND, JR., Defendant. No. 2:13-cv-2343-KJM-KJN PS United States District Court, E.D. California. November 12, 2015

          ORDER

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         On October 30, 2015, the United States filed a motion to withdraw admissions. (ECF No. 53.) Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, defendant filed a motion for an order dropping or striking the United States' motion to withdraw admissions, or in the alternative, to set a date for defendant's opposition to that motion on the merits. (ECF No. 58.) Defendant contends that the United States' motion is procedurally improper in various respects.

         The court finds it appropriate to require defendant to oppose the United States' motion on the merits. However, in doing so, the court does not prejudge or resolve in any way defendant's arguments that the United States' motion is procedurally improper. The court may well ultimately resolve the motion on procedural grounds, or may proceed to the merits. Regardless, the court presently finds that the interests of judicial efficiency would be served by allowing the motion to be briefed both as to procedural issues and on the merits, creating a proper record for the court to consider all the issues.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion for an order dropping or striking the United States' motion to withdraw admissions, or in the alternative, to set a date for defendant's opposition to that motion on the merits (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. Defendant shall file an opposition to the United States' motion to withdraw admissions no later than December 1, 2015. Such an opposition shall address both (a) any alleged procedural deficiencies involving that motion and (b) the merits of the motion.

3. The United States shall file any reply brief within seven (7) days of the docketing of defendant's opposition on the CM/ECF system.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Wanland

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Nov 12, 2015
2:13-cv-2343-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Wanland

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD M. WANLAND, JR., Defendant.

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2015

Citations

2:13-cv-2343-KJM-KJN PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015)