AtPac, Inc v. Aptitude Solutions, Inc., et al

Filing 152

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 4/8/2011 DENYING 151 Stipulation for Extended Supplemental Briefing. The court takes Aptitude's 80 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under submission without any supplemental briefing or arguments. (Kirksey Smith, K)

-JFM (TEMP) AtPac, Inc v. Aptitude Solutions, Inc., et al

Doc. 152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ----oo0oo---11 12 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 / ----oo0oo---This matter came on for a hearing on March 14, 2011, on the motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant Aptitude Solutions, Inc. ("Aptitude"). Plaintiff argued at the APTITUDE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, COUNTY OF NEVADA, a California County, and GREGORY J. DIAZ, an individual, ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR EXTENDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ATPAC, INC., a California corporation, NO. CIV. 2:10-294 WBS JFM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

hearing that Aptitude's reply and oral argument had improperly raised new arguments and new evidence, and sought leave to file its own new arguments and evidence in response. The parties do

not have a right to introduce such new arguments or evidence. See Burnham v. City of Rohnert Park, No. C 92-1439, 1992 WL 1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

672965, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 1992) ("[R]eply briefs are limited in scope to matters either raised by the opposition or unforeseen at the time of the original motion."). The court nevertheless, in deference to the parties' wishes, sought to accommodate counsel by allowing the new arguments and evidence, giving plaintiff an opportunity to respond, and giving Aptitude an opportunity to reply. The

parties now state that they need more than the month previously allotted by the court in order to respond; indeed, they now ask for a further three-month extension. This court has an

independent obligation to decide motions promptly, and is unwilling to postpone decision on the pending motion any further. Accordingly, the request for an extension of time to file supplemental briefs is denied, and the court takes Aptitude's motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 80) under submission without any supplemental briefing or arguments. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 8, 2011

2