Fox et al v. County of Tulare, et al
Filing
239
ORDER ; granting 237 Motion for Extension of time to file reply brief. signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/30/14. (Nazaroff, H)
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.
1:11-cv-O520 AWI SMS
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY
AND ORDER THEREON
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,
17
Defendants.
18
19
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REPLY
20
21
22
Defendants, LETICIA CASTANEDA, ERICA SOTO, and RON CASTANEDA, hereby
apply to this Court for an order extending the deadline for filing their reply to plaintiffs’
opposition to the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication on the grounds that good
23
cause exists for extending the time within which Defendants may reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition.
24
Good caused is due to the length of Plaintiffs’ points and authorities (50 pages), the number of
25
Plaintiffs’ exhibits (160) and the time-consuming effort to identify Plaintiffs’ evidence which
26
routinely does not include citations to specific exhibits or documents. [See Doc. 207 and 232]
27
28
A
1
BACKGROUND
2
Plaintiff, PAMELA FOX, on behalf of herself and minor CMR, filed a complaint for
3
damages against Defendants on March 24, 2011. Defendants filed their motion for summary
4
judgment/adjudication of issues on January 21, 2014. Plaintiffs’ opposition was due on February
5
14, 2014. Plaintiffs were subsequently granted two separate requests for extensions of time to
6
oppose the motion. [Docs. 188 and 201] The deadline for filing the opposition was extended to
7
April 17, 2014; and Defendants reply to the opposition was to be filed on or before May 2, 2014.
8
[Doc. 201] In that Order, the Court stated, “Further extension of time will not be granted for
9
submissions of Plaintiffs’ [sic] opposition, however Defendants may move for a one week
10
further extension of time to reply.” Defendants hereby request an extension of one week to reply
11
to Plaintiffs’ opposing papers, to be filed and served on or before May 9, 2014.
12
LAW AND ARGUMENT
13
A. A Request for Extension of Time to Plead May Be Made by Ex Parte Application.
14
A schedule may be modified for good cause and with the Judge’s consent. Fed. R. Civ.
15
P. 16(b)(4). An ex parte application is recognized as an appropriate procedure for seeking an
16
extension of time to file a pleading. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis
17
20113, *1-2 (E.D. Cal. 2006); Hall v. Placer County Sheriff’s Department, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis
18
114348, *1 (E.D.Cal. 2013); Stewart v. Wachowski, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46704, *33 (C.D. Cal.
19
2005).)
20
An ex parte motion is proper where the court does not typically need an adversary
21
presentation from the other side in order to make its ruling. In Re Intermagnetics America, Inc.
22
(C.D. Cal. 1989) 101 B.R. 191, 193.
23
B. Good Cause Exists for Extending the Deadline for Filing Defendants’ Reply.
24
The moving parties should be allowed relief by ex parte motion because this Court has
25
previously granted Plaintiffs two extensions of time to file their opposition and has indicated in
26
its order of March 7, 2014, that an extension of one week for Defendants to serve and file their
27
reply would be permitted upon request. [Doc. 201]
28
-2A
1
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION
2
Defendants having shown good cause for the extension of time to file their reply to
3
plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication, this Court
4
grants Defendants’ ex parte application and orders Defendants’ reply to be filed and served on or
5
before May 9, 2014.
6
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 30, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3A
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?