Fox et al v. County of Tulare, et al

Filing 202

Amended Order granting Plaintiffs' request for further extension of time for filing opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/10/2014. (Plaintiffs' Opposition filed by 4/17/2014; Defendants' Opposition filed by 5/2/2014) (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

PAMELA J. FOX, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND AS NEXT FRIEND TO
D.M.R., A MINOR,

11

Plaintiffs,

12

vs.

13
14
15
16

COUNTY OF TULARE, LETICIA
CASTANEDA, ERICA SOTO, RON
CASTANEDA, JULIA LANGLEY, CAROL
HELDING, JOHN ROZUM, STEVEN D.
RODGERS and DOES 1-100,

1:11-cv-O520 AWI SMS

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
FILING OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

17
Defendants.

18
19

In this action for damages, Plaintiffs have filed for a 30-day extension of time to file and

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

opposition to Defendants motion for summary judgment. The court notes that the trial date in
this action is currently set for September 30, 2014. There is therefore no concern of impinging
on dates relevant to trial preparation in granting Plaintiff’s request. The court notes that a
substantial amount of documentation has been submitted in support of Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment and that a similarly substantial amount of material is expected from
Plaintiffs’ in their opposition. The court is currently highly impacted by the combination of high
workload and unfilled judicial positions. It is of no small benefit to the court if the parties, who
will likely be required to wait a substantial time for the court’s ruling in any event, have

A

1
2
3
4
5

adequate time to fully and completely brief the issues. Defendants contend they will be
prejudiced by the grant of additional time to Plaintiffs because they will only have one week to
reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. The court will mitigate any prejudice by granting additional time
for Defendant’s reply.

6
THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a 30-day extension of

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

time to submit an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s shall file and serve their opposition not later than April 17, 2014. Defendant may file
and serve their oppositions on or before Friday, May 2, 2014. Further extension of time will not
be granted for submission of Plaintiff’s opposition, however Defendants may move for a oneweek further extension of time to reply upon request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 10, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2A