U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Marquez Brothers International, Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM DECEMBER 17 HEARING DATE. Defendants' Request for Relief from the December 17 Hearing Date on the EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 103) is GRANTED. The hearing on this motion shall be reset for January 28, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Order signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/20/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

v.
MARQUEZ BROTHERS INT’L, INC.;
MARQUEZ BROTHERS ENT., INC.;
MARQUEZ BROTHERS FOODS, INC.;
MARQUEZ BROTHERS SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, INC.;
MARQUEZ BROTHERS NEVADA, INC.;
MARQUEZ BROTHERS TEXAS, INC.;
and DOES 1 thru 10,

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-44 AWI-EPG
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
FROM DECEMBER 17 HEARING
DATE
(Doc. No. 103)

Defendants

17
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has alleged Defendants engaged in
18
unlawful employment practices by failing to hire multiple persons based on their race. Doc. No.
19
75. The EEOC currently has two pending motions before the Court: a Request for
20

Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order (Doc. No. 100), and a Motion for

21
Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 102). The hearing date for the latter motion is currently set
22
for December 17, 2018. Id.
23
Defendants now request a continuation of that hearing, to the next available date.
24
Defendants assert good cause exists, given that the current briefing schedule would require
25

Defendants to brief its opposition over the Thanksgiving holiday, and given that the EEOC’s

26
proposed new hearing date falls on a day when the Court is closed for the Christmas holidays.
27
28

Defendants maintain there is no urgency to the EEOC’s motion, as it concerns certain affirmative

1

defenses and their effect on merits discovery (which the parties have yet to begin).
The EEOC objects, contending Defendants have had ample notice of the Agency’s intent

2
3

to file the Motion. Doc. No. 104. The EEOC also asserts it will be prejudiced, as it has not yet

4

been able to conduct merits discovery on its claims of race discrimination. Id.
“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause,

5
6

extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made,

7

before the original time or its extension expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). “Good cause” is a

8

non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.

9

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (reversing denial of

10

request to extend deadline where the plaintiff sought one-week extension to his shortened

11

summary-judgment response deadline and where request was reasonable and would not result in

12

prejudice to any party).
The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Request and the EEOC’s objections. Based upon

13
14

good cause, as argued by Defendants, the request to move the hearing will be granted.

15

ORDER

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

17

1.

18
19

Defendants’ Request for Relief from the December 17 Hearing Date on the EEOC’s
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 103) is GRANTED; and

2.

The hearing on this motion shall be reset for January 28, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2