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)

Download PDF
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

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?