Xie v. Turner Designs Hydro Carbon Instruments, Inc. et al

Filing 39

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Dismiss 31 & 36 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/3/2017. (Timken, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:17-cv-00284-LJO-SKO AGNES XIE, Plaintiff, v. TURNER DESIGNS HYDRO CARBON INSTRUMENTS, INC., et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS (Docs. 31 & 36) Defendants. _____________________________________/ 16 17 Before the Court are Plaintiff's (1) "Amended Second Motion for Extension of Time to 18 Response [sic] to Motion to Dismiss" (the "Amended Motion"), (Doc. 31), and (2) “Second 19 Motion for Extension of Time for Response [sic] to Dismiss” (the “Second Motion”), (Doc. 36). 20 For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Amended Motion, (Doc. 31), and the 21 Second Motion, (Doc. 36), insofar as Plaintiff requests an extension to file her opposition to the 22 pending motions to dismiss. However, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of this case, 23 the Court finds that a sixty day extension―and not Plaintiff's requested ninety day extension―is 24 appropriate. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff may respond to Defendants' motions 25 to dismiss, (Docs. 19 & 20), by no later than October 2, 2017. The Court further ORDERS that 26 Defendants may file their reply briefs, if they so choose, by no later than October 16, 2017. 27 The Court also notes that Plaintiff filed a "Part 1" opposition to one of the motions to 28 dismiss on July 31, 2017. (See Doc. 32.) The Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that she may file―and 1 the Court will only consider―one opposition to each pending motion to dismiss. As such, if 2 Plaintiff files an additional opposition to this motion to dismiss, (see Doc. 19), the Court shall only 3 consider Plaintiff's newly filed opposition and not her July 31, 2017 "Part 1" filing. 4 Finally, Plaintiff sent an ex parte e-mail to the Court on July 31, 2017, that included a 5 “protective order” for certain documents associated with Plaintiff’s July 31, 2017 “Part 1” filing. 6 If Plaintiff files a new opposition to the subject motion to dismiss, (see Doc. 19), the Court will 7 disregard this July 31, 2017 ex parte communication. However, if Plaintiff wishes instead to rely 8 on this “Part 1” filing as her one opposition to this motion to dismiss, then the Court DIRECTS 9 Plaintiff to file a motion requesting to seal the documents in accordance with Local Rule 141. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 13 August 3, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 .

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?