M. et al v. Drycreek Joint Elemtnary School District et al

Filing 81

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/10/12 GRANTING defendant's request re 78 Memorandum filed by Drycreek Joint Elementary School District to file its reply to plaintiff's late opposition. Defendant has 7 days from the date on which this order is filed to file its reply brief. Further, 65 motion for summary judgment will be decided without oral argument and the hearing scheduled for 4/16/12 is VACATED. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

G.M., a minor, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem, KEVIN
MARCHESE, an individual, and
LYNDI MARCHESE, an individual,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

DRY CREEK JOINT ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL DISTRICT,

14

Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-00944-GEB-GDH
ORDER EXTENDING TIME IN WHICH
DEFENDANT MAY FILE A REPLY TO
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND
VACATING THE HEARING
SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 16, 2012

15
16

Defendant filed a request under Local Rules 78-230(c) and 6-

17

144(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1), in which it

18

states

19

Defendant’s summary judgment motion.]” (Def.’s Supp. Brief 2:3.) In the

20

alternative, Defendant requests an extension of time in which to file

21

its reply to Plaintiff’s late opposition.

the

Court

Defendant

22

should

argues

“reject

that

Plaintiff’s

“[b]ecause

late

the

[opposition

to

hearing date [for

23

Defendant’s summary judgment motion] is scheduled for April 16, 2012,

24

Plaintiff’s Opposition was due no later than April 2, 2012.” (Def.’s

25

Supp.

26

Opposition . . . was untimely filed on Saturday, April 7, 2012, without

27

having obtained the necessary extension from the court or requesting a

28

stipulation from opposing counsel.” Id. 2:8-11. Defendant also argues

Brief

2:19-20.)

Defendant

further

1

argues

that

“Plaintiff’s

1

“Plaintiff’s late filing the weekend prior to the [date Defendant’s]

2

Reply is due prevents [Defendant] from timely filing its Reply, since it

3

affords [Defendant] only eight . . . hours to review, analyze, research,

4

and draft a Reply[.]” Id. 2:23-25.

5

Plaintiff’s opposition brief was filed on two days, April 6

6

and 7, 2012, which is less than fourteen days before the date on which

7

the

8

Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition was not timely filed under Local Rule

9

78-230(c), which prescribes that an “[o]pposition . . . to the granting

10

of [a] motion . . . shall be filed and served not less than fourteen

11

(14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date.” L.R. 78-

12

230(c).

hearing

on

Defendant’s

summary

judgment

motion

is

scheduled.

13

Therefore, Defendant’s request for an extension of time in

14

which to file its reply to Plaintiff’s late opposition is granted.

15

Defendant has seven (7) days from the date on which this order is filed

16

to file its reply brief.

17

Further, the summary judgment motion will be decided without

18

oral argument and the hearing scheduled for April 16, 2012 is vacated.

19

L.R. 78-230(c) (“No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to

20

a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been

21

timely filed by that party.”).

22

Dated:

April 10, 2012

23
24
25

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2