Lopez v. Shiroma, et al.

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Re Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Briefing signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/28/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SILVIA LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,

9
10

1:14-CV-00236-LJO-GSA
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME
FOR BRIEFING (DOC. 31)

v.

GENEVIEVE SHIROMA, an individual;
CATHRYN RIVERA-HERNANDEZ, an
individual; J. ANTONIO BARBOSA, an
12
individual; SILAS SHAWVER, an individual;
and DOES 1-20,
13
11

14

Defendants.

15
16
On August 6, 2014 Parties in the above-captioned case agreed by stipulation to stay proceedings
17
before this Court, pending the outcome of Defendants’ appeal of this Court’s decision, Doc. No. 20,
18
denying Defendants absolute immunity. Doc. No. 22. On August 19, Plaintiff moved this Court to
19
appoint an expert special master to take possession of ballots from the contested union election that is
20
the subject of her lawsuit (“Motion for Special Master”). Doc. No. 24. Shortly thereafter, Defendants
21
filed a motion to enforce the stay and strike Plaintiff’s Motion for a Special Master from the record.
22
(“Motion to Enforce Stay”). Doc. No. 30. Defendants simultaneously filed an Ex Parte Application to
23
Shorten Time (“Application”), Doc. No. 31, requesting that this Court shorten the briefing schedule on
24
their Motion to Enforce Stay, so that a ruling might be delivered prior to briefing deadlines for
25
Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff opposes this on the basis that there are no exigent circumstances warranting
26
1

1

shortened time and that Plaintiff would be highly prejudiced by the briefing schedule proposed by

2

Defendants. Doc. No. 33.
Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Stay challenges this Court’s jurisdiction over the matter raised in

3
4

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Special Master. Thus, this Court finds that judicial economy is served by

5

resolving the Motion to Enforce Stay before the Motion for Special Master. In contrast, neither judicial

6

nor party economy would be served by adopting Plaintiff’s suggested approach, which would permit

7

Defendants to raise jurisdictional objections in response to the Motion for Special Master. See United

8

States v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Mariana Islands, 694 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012), as amended

9

(Oct. 16, 2012) (“[A] district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its

10 docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).
11

However, the Court also agrees with Plaintiff that no exigent circumstances exist that require an

12 accelerated briefing schedule. Thus, the Court will grant Plaintiff the additional time she requested to
13 respond.1 Because Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Stay may be mooted by resolution of Defendant’s
14 Motion for Special Master, the hearing and briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s Motion for Special Master is
15 VACATED, and will be reset as necessary, pending the resolution of Defendant’s Motion to Enforce
16 Stay. The briefing schedule on Plaintiff’s Motion for Special Master is suspended until further notice.
17

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18

For the reasons discussed above and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Local

19 Rule 144(e), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Briefing.
The Court hereby orders that Defendants’ Motion, Doc. No. 30, will be briefed according to the

20

21 following schedule:
Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Stay, if any, shall be filed no

22

23 later than Friday, September 12, 2014.
24
25
1

26

Plaintiff urges this Court to deny Defendants an opportunity to reply in support of their Motion to Enforce Stay. As Plaintiff
notes, no exigent circumstances exist. Therefore, the Court sees no reason to deny Defendants an opportunity customarily
afforded to parties in this Court.

2

1
2

Defendants’ reply brief in support of the Motion to Enforce Stay shall be filed no later than
Friday, September 19, 2014.

3

No hearing is set for this matter.

4

The Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Special Master, Doc. No. 24, is VACATED and the

5

briefing schedule suspended until further notice.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

August 28, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3