M. et al v. Drycreek Joint Elemtnary School District et al
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
G.M., a minor, by and through
his Guardian ad Litem, KEVIN
MARCHESE, an individual, and
LYNDI MARCHESE, an individual,
DRY CREEK JOINT ELEMENTARY
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
Defendant filed a request under Local Rules 78-230(c) and 6-
144(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 6(b)(1), in which it
Defendant’s summary judgment motion.]” (Def.’s Supp. Brief 2:3.) In the
alternative, Defendant requests an extension of time in which to file
its reply to Plaintiff’s late opposition.
hearing date [for
Defendant’s summary judgment motion] is scheduled for April 16, 2012,
Plaintiff’s Opposition was due no later than April 2, 2012.” (Def.’s
Opposition . . . was untimely filed on Saturday, April 7, 2012, without
having obtained the necessary extension from the court or requesting a
stipulation from opposing counsel.” Id. 2:8-11. Defendant also argues
“Plaintiff’s late filing the weekend prior to the [date Defendant’s]
Reply is due prevents [Defendant] from timely filing its Reply, since it
affords [Defendant] only eight . . . hours to review, analyze, research,
and draft a Reply[.]” Id. 2:23-25.
Plaintiff’s opposition brief was filed on two days, April 6
and 7, 2012, which is less than fourteen days before the date on which
Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition was not timely filed under Local Rule
78-230(c), which prescribes that an “[o]pposition . . . to the granting
of [a] motion . . . shall be filed and served not less than fourteen
(14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date.” L.R. 78-
Therefore, Defendant’s request for an extension of time in
which to file its reply to Plaintiff’s late opposition is granted.
Defendant has seven (7) days from the date on which this order is filed
to file its reply brief.
Further, the summary judgment motion will be decided without
oral argument and the hearing scheduled for April 16, 2012 is vacated.
L.R. 78-230(c) (“No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to
a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been
timely filed by that party.”).
April 10, 2012
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge
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?