Avitan v. Barkan et al. — Supreme Court grants consensual extension of time for respondents to file opposition to motion to consolidate proceedings

Case
Shlomi Avitan v. Shlomo Barkan et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Israel
Date Decided
June 15, 2026
Citation
א”ת 85850-05-26
Topics
Procedural Order, Extension of Time, Consolidation of Proceedings

Background

This matter is a multi-party proceeding before Justice Gila Knafi-Steinitz of the Supreme Court of Israel, captioned Shlomi Avitan v. Shlomo Barkan et al., and involving 67 named respondents spanning individuals and corporations. A motion to consolidate proceedings (בקשה לאיחוד תובענות) has been filed, to which the respondents are required to respond.

Respondents 4–6 (Moah Lehaskir Ltd., G.R.P. Real Estate Afula Ltd., and Adv. Yoram (Yuri) Guy-Ron) and Respondents 55–61 (Yosef Shem-Tov, Yosef Shem-Tov CPA, Roksana Assets and Investments Ltd., Reinish Investments and Holdings Ltd., Novatrails Ltd., Hadar Shwiki, and Amir Ganosar), represented by Adv. Marah Magamsa, filed a consensual request for an extension of the deadline to submit their response to the consolidation motion.

The Court’s Holding

Justice Knafi-Steinitz granted the consensual extension request. The court ordered that Respondents 4–6 and 55–61 submit their response to the motion to consolidate proceedings by June 15, 2026 — the same date on which the order was issued.

The decision is purely procedural in nature and contains no substantive legal analysis or ruling on the merits of the underlying consolidation motion or any other issue in the case.

Key Takeaways

  • This is a routine procedural order granting a consensual time extension; it creates no legal precedent.
  • The court set the response deadline as June 15, 2026, concurrent with the date of the order itself.
  • The underlying substantive dispute — and the motion to consolidate proceedings involving 67 respondents — remains pending before the Supreme Court.

Why It Matters

This order is of limited legal significance beyond the immediate procedural posture of the case. It reflects standard case-management practice in complex multi-party litigation before the Israeli Supreme Court, where consensual deadline extensions are routinely accommodated.

The case itself — involving dozens of individual and corporate respondents in what appears to be a large-scale real estate or commercial dispute — may be of broader interest once the consolidation motion and underlying merits are adjudicated.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top