Lasheen v. Loomis Company, et al

Filing 356

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/24/12 ORDERING that The Egyptian defendants' request for a continuance and an extension of time, 353 is granted; The October 3, 2012 hearing on plaintiff's motion for default jud gment, 345 is continued to December 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24; The Egyptian defendants shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than November 14, 2012; Failure of the Egyptian defen dants to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the motion, and may result in a recommendation that the motion be granted; Plaintiff may file a reply to the Egyptian defendants' opposition, if any, on or before November 21, 2012. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MOHAMMED E. LASHEEN, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 No. 2:01-cv-0227-LKK-EFB vs. THE LOOMIS COMPANY, et al., ORDER Defendants. 14 / 15 AND RELATED CROSS CLAIM / 16 17 Presently noticed for hearing on October 3, 2012 is plaintiff’s motion for default 18 judgment.1 Dckt. No. 345. On September 19, 2012, the Egyptian defendants filed an ex parte 19 request for a continuance of the October 3 hearing and an extension of time to respond to the 20 motion for default judgment. Dckt. No. 353. The Egypt defendants contend that they need 21 additional time to respond to the motion because the motion “contain[s] several hundred pages of 22 exhibits and documents and will require significant time for review and response.” Id. at 2. The 23 Egyptian defendants also contend that they need additional time because defense counsel “has 24 been involved in several other matters that were unanticipated,” and because “[t]he Defendant is 25 1 26 This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(19). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 1 a country which is currently experiencing significant disruption in its operation as a result of a 2 revolution and recent elections,” and as a result, defense counsel “has been unable to coordinate 3 with Defendants.” Id. Defendants note that they attempted to obtain plaintiff’s counsel’s 4 consent to the continuance and extension of time, “but did not receive a return call.”2 Id. 5 Although plaintiff filed objections to the ex parte request for a continuance and extension 6 on September 20, 2012, Dckt. No. 354, in light of the Egyptian defendants’ representations 7 addressed above, their request for a continuance and an extension of time to file an opposition to 8 the default judgment motion will be granted. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Egyptian defendants’ request for a continuance and an extension of time, Dckt. No. 353, is granted. 2. The October 3, 2012 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Dckt. No. 345, is continued to December 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24. 3. The Egyptian defendants shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than November 14, 2012. 4. Failure of the Egyptian defendants to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of 17 non-opposition to the motion, and may result in a recommendation that the motion be granted. 18 5. Plaintiff may file a reply to the Egyptian defendants’ opposition, if any, on or before 19 November 21, 2012. 20 SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: September 24, 2012. 22 23 2 24 25 26 Local Rule 144, which permits matters to be heard on shortened time, provides that “[a]pplications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time [and] will not be granted except upon affidavit of counsel showing a satisfactory explanation for the need for the issuance of such an order and for the failure of counsel to obtain a stipulation for the issuance of such an order from other counsel or parties in the action.” 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?