Sotelo v. Birring, et al.

Filing 64

ORDER Continuing 41 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment From Court's Calendar Until Motion is Submitted Pursuant to Local Rule 230, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/9/2011. (Jessen, A)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
ROBERTO A. SOTELO,

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01342-LJO-SKO PC

5
Plaintiff,

ORDER CONTINUING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FROM COURT’S CALENDAR UNTIL
MOTION IS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO
LOCAL RULE 230

6
v.
7
T. BIRRING, et al.,
8
Defendants.
9

(Doc. 41)
/

10
On January 25, 2011, Defendants Birring and Das filed a motion for summary judgment.
11
Subsequently, the Court appointed counsel to represent Plaintiff and a scheduling conference is set
12
for October 27, 2011. On July 26, 2011, the Court ordered Defendants to file a notice either
13
withdrawing their motion pending further scheduling or stating their intent to stand by their motion
14
as filed. On August 5, 2011, Defendants notified the Court that they do not wish to withdraw their
15
motion and they intend to stand by the motion as is.
16
Accordingly, in light of 28 U.S.C. § 476(a)(1), the Civil Justice Reform Act, Defendants’
17
motion for summary judgment is ORDERED CONTINUED from the Court’s calendar until
18

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed and the motion is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230.1

19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22

Dated:
b9ed48

August 9, 2011

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
1

28

A deadline for opposing the motion will be set during the scheduling conference. This order is solely
administrative and nothing is required of the parties.

1