relied on by defendant.”); Mahaska State Bank v. Weiler (In re Weiler), Adv. Proc. No. 01-20105, 2003 WL 25932294, at *1 (Bankr.S.D.Iowa May 27, 2003) (con ducting evidentiary hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment in adversary proceeding); Anderson v. Beardsley (In re Beardsley), 118 B.R. 120, 121 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1990) (“The Court held a final evidentiary hearing on the Motions for Summary Judgment and finds the relevant matters as established at the hearing to be as follows.... ”). See also United States v. Peery, 862 F.2d 567, 568 (6th Cir.1988) (affirming district court’s judgment after district court held motion for summary judgment in abeyance, conducted an evi-dentiary hearing, and then granted summary judgment). Cf. Wolgast v. Richards, 463 B.R. 445, 452 (E.D.Mich.2012) (<HOLDING>). C. This Approach Secures the Just) Speedy,
holding that former federal rule of civil procedure 6a and e applies to federal habeas petitions holding that federal rule of civil procedure rule 6a applies to the calculation of the aedpas oneyear limitations period holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding federal rule of civil procedure 11 motion in abeyance pending resolution of a bankruptcy proceeding holding that successful rico defendants may receive attorneys fees under federal rule of civil procedure 11