Guerrero v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE WHY PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION SHOULD NOT BE STRICKEN AS UNTIMELY signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on May 31, 2017. (ECF NO. 30) (Munoz, I)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LUIS GUERRERO,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

1:16-cv-1300-LJO-JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE WHY
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION SHOULD
NOT BE STRICKEN AS UNTIMELY

v.
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

(ECF No. 30)
Defendant.

13
14

Pending before the Court is Defendant Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Defendant”)’s motion

15 to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff Luis Guerrero (“Plaintiff”)’s claims. ECF No. 29. The
16 hearing date for Defendant’s motion currently is set for June 12, 2017 before this Court. See id.
17 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion was due no
18 later than fourteen (14) days prior to June 12, 2017: May 29, 2017. However, because May 29, 2017 was
19 a legal holiday, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(C)(indicating a period stated in
20 days that ends on a legal holiday continues to run until the “next day”), (a)(5)(defining “next day” to
21 mean the previous day if period requires backwards counting), and (a)(6)(defining Memorial Day as a
22 legal holiday), Plaintiff’s opposition was due on or before Friday, May 26, 2017.
23

Defendant filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Plaintiff’s Opposition on Saturday, May 27, 2017 at

24 approximately 2:33 PM PDT. ECF No. 30. Plaintiff filed his Opposition on Saturday, May 27, 2017 at
25 7:00 PM PDT. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff’s Opposition did not include any explanation of why it was not
1

1
2

timely filed. See id. To date, Plaintiff has not provided any explanation.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the opposition should not be

3

stricken. Plaintiff’s response is to be in declaration form, under oath, and must be filed on or before 3:00

4

PM PST on Friday, June 2, 2017. Alternatively, given the infrequent applicability of the combination

5

of rules cited above, the Court would entertain a stipulation extending the time for the filling of a reply.

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
8

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 31, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2