Case 8:22-cv-00997-WDK Document 57 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:2936
`
`xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
`
`Anthony R. Bisconti, State Bar No. 269230
`tbisconti@bklwlaw.com
`BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`San Clemente, California 92673
`Telephone (949) 369-3700
`Facsimile (949) 369-3701
`Attorneys for Appellees Earnesty LLC, Robinson Pharma Inc.,
`Alpha Health Research, and Tuong Nguyen
`
`In re:
`HEARTWISE, INC.,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Bankr. Case No.: 8:20-bk-13335-SC
`Adv. Case No.: 8:21-ap-01019-SC
`USDC Case No.: 8:22-cv-00997-WDK
`
`Debtor.
`
`DAVIDPAUL DOYLE,
`Appellant,
`
`v.
`EARNESTY, LLC, et al,
`Appellees.
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER CONCERNING
`COURT’S SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 ORDER
`STAYING APPEAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00997-WDK Document 57 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2of2 Page ID #:2937
`Case 8:22-cv-00997-WDK Document 57 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:2937
`
`oOoANDWNFFWwNY
`
`——-_-©
`
`12
`
`The Court, having reviewed and considered Appellees’ Statement of Position
`
`Concerning Impact of Ruling in Case No. 8:21-cv-01961-AB on the Present Appeal
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s September 7, 2022 Order [Dkt. No. 28] (the “Statement’) filed on
`
`August 23, 2023, the evidence submitted in support of the Statement, the recordin this case,
`
`and all matters of which the Court maytake judicial notice, and finding good cause, orders
`
`as follows:
`
`1.
`
`The stay of this appeal, pursuant to the Court’s order entered September 7,
`
`2022, is lifted.
`2.
`Within soommcee)days of entry of this Order, Appellant Osman Khanis
`required to show cause in writing whythis appeal should not be dismissed. Appellees shall
`Fourteen (14)
`—
`haveXX daysto file any response to Mr. Khan’s submission.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED
`
`
`
`DATED: October26, 2023 BY: Aiftceran72ett
`
`
`
`Hon.William D.Keller
`United States District Judge
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket