Hamm & Barry v. Rogers, Townsend & Thomas PC ET AL
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 HAMM & BARRY, a Virgin Islands 5 partnership; and Donovan M. Hamm and 5 Edward L. Barry, individually, 5 2007-CV-0082 5 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 5 5 ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, P.C., a 5 South Carolina professional corporation, and 5 EUGENE F. ROGERS, individually, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Edward L. Barry, Esq. Carol Ann Rich, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal (Docket No. 26). In response, Defendants filed a document titled “Request to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Reference; to Decalre [sic] Non Core Status and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 27). Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a document titled “Reply Re Motion to Withdraw Reference; to Declare Non-Core Status; and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 29). Case: 1:07-cv-00082-RLF-GWC Document #: 30 Filed: 11/26/08 Page 1 of 3 Hamm & Barry v. Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, P.C. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00082/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_07-cv-00082-0.pdf
SHA-256 565755c2b3021399eec951ee6cac371953378fbdb4b872d9e922c3e0237a35e4
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-565755c2b302
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 HAMM & BARRY, a Virgin Islands 5 partnership; and Donovan M. Hamm and 5 Edward L. Barry, individually, 5 2007-CV-0082 5 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 5 5 ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, P.C., a 5 South Carolina professional corporation, and 5 EUGENE F. ROGERS, individually, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Edward L. Barry, Esq. Carol Ann Rich, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal (Docket No. 26). In response, Defendants filed a document titled “Request to Dismiss or Stay Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Reference; to Decalre [sic] Non Core Status and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 27). Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a document titled “Reply Re Motion to Withdraw Reference; to Declare Non-Core Status; and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 29). Case: 1:07-cv-00082-RLF-GWC Document #: 30 Filed: 11/26/08 Page 1 of 3 Hamm & Barry v. Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, P.C. 2007-CV-0082 Order It is clear from the record that the only motion currently before this Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal (Docket No. 26). While Plaintiffs also filed a document titled “Notice of Filing Motion to Withdraw Reference; Declare Non-Core Status; and to Honor Plaintiffs’ Demand For Jury Trial” (Docket No. 25), purporting to file said motion to withdraw under seal, no such titled motion has ever been filed with the Court. Having reviewed the Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal and having considered the premises therein, and given Plaintiffs’ representation that the “content of Plaintiffs’ Motion [to Withdraw] does not address the substantive issues [of the bankruptcy matter] in any great factual detail,” Motion at 1, the Court finds no reason to seal such document. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave to File Court Document Under Seal (Docket No. 26) is DENIED. 2. Defendants’ request to dismiss or stay Plaintiffs’ Motion to Withdraw Reference (Docket No. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT. 3. Plaintiffs may file their motion to withdraw, if they so choose, and the relevant procedural rules shall apply thereto. Case: 1:07-cv-00082-RLF-GWC Document #: 30 Filed: 11/26/08 Page 2 of 3 Hamm & Barry v. Rogers, Townsend & Thomas, P.C. 2007-CV-0082 Order 4. A status conference in this matter is scheduled for December 9, 2008, at 11:30 a.m., in Magistrate’s Chambers. ENTER: Dated: November 26, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:07-cv-00082-RLF-GWC Document #: 30 Filed: 11/26/08 Page 3 of 3