Novo v. Ashby et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 12/22/14 ORDERING that Defendants' 55 Ex Parte Application to Strike is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 54 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED, without prejudice, to being refiled should the necessary leave of court be obtained. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SARAH R. NOVO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-00521-MCE-AC

v.

ORDER

CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
ANGELIQUE ASHBY,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in

19

this matter (ECF No. 54). Counsel for Defendants, in turn, filed an Ex parte Application

20

to Strike said motion as untimely (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff has filed no opposition to that

21

Application, which is now before the Court for adjudication.

22

This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton. On

23

July 28, 2014, Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment and noticed said

24

Motion for hearing on August 25, 2014. That hearing date conformed with Judge

25

Karlton’s Pretrial Scheduling Order, (“PTSO”) issued July 11, 2013, which required any

26

motion to be heard by September 8, 2014. ECF No. 18. On August 18, 2014, Judge

27

///

28
1

1

Karlton continued the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to October 14, 2014 in accordance

2

with plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Continue. See ECF Nos. 33, 35.

3

On August 27, 2014, the case was reassigned to the undersigned in view of

4

Judge Karlton’s impending retirement from the bench. ECF No. 36. Defendants’ Motion

5

was subsequently re-noticed before this Court for hearing on October 30, 2014. Given

6

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the Motion prior to the October 30 hearing date, an Order to

7

Show Cause was issued on October 21, 2014, as to why the case should not be

8

dismissed for noncompliance with the applicable Local Rules and for failure to

9

prosecute. ECF No. 42. Opposition was ultimately filed by Plaintiff on November 18,

10

2014, and the hearing was reset to December 18, 2014. ECF Nos. 48, 51.

11

Consequently, while Defendants’ Motion was not actually heard until

12

December 18, 2014, it was initially noticed for hearing on August 25, 2014, within the

13

time period contemplated by Judge Karlton’s PTSO. With respect to motions submitted

14

outside the PTSO’s time parameters, the PTSO states clearly that any such deadline

15

shall not be “modified except by leave of court upon a showing of good cause.” PTSO,

16

ECF No. 18, 10:3-4. The provisions of the PTSO remained in effect upon reassignment

17

of this matter to the undersigned unless otherwise changed. As this Court’s

18

Reassignment Order of August 27, 2014 states: “All dates currently set in this

19

reassigned action shall remain effective subject to further order of the court.” ECF

20

No. 36, 1:23-24.

21

Here, Plaintiff obtained no leave of court before filing her Motion for Summary

22

Judgment despite the fact that said Motion was scheduled for hearing on January 22,

23

2015, more than four months after the deadline for hearing had passed. Given that

24

failure, Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Strike (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 54) is accordingly DENIED, without

2

prejudice, to being refiled should the necessary leave of court be obtained.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: December 22, 2014

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