Hartline v. National University

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/19/2014 ORDERING 14 Plaintiff's motion for extension of time is GRANTED in PART and plaintiff is GRANTED 35 days to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss; the 12/3/2014 hearing on d efendant's 7 Motion to Dismiss if VACATED and RESCHEDULED to 1/7/2015 at 10:00 AM; Plaintiff's Opposition to defendant's motion is due by 12/24/2014, Defendant's reply, if any, is due by 12/31/2014; and the 1/7/2015 initial scheduling conference is VACATED and RESCHEDULED to 3/4/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DOYLE DEAN HARTLINE,

11
12

No. 2:14-cv-00635 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

13

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,

14

Defendant.

15
16

On August 4, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a hearing on the matter was

17

ultimately scheduled before the undersigned on September 24, 2014. ECF Nos. 7, 9. On August

18

19, 2014, plaintiff moved the court for a 120-day extension of time based on his medical

19

conditions. ECF No. 11. The court granted plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to respond to

20

defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 13. The court cautioned plaintiff that he must timely

21

file a response to defendant’s motion and failure to do so may result in an order to show cause.

22

Id. The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss was continued to December 3, 2014 and

23

plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition no later than November 19, 2014. Id.

24

On November 17, 2014, plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time to respond

25

to defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff has requested a 60-day extension of time

26

to prepare and file his opposition, and avers that he has begun “to correctly draft his complaint”

27

and “is in the process of providing [an] Attorney with the necessary documentation pertaining to

28

[his] complaint.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff states that “because of Plaintiffs restrictions on sitting and
1

1

recent medical issues including physical therapy and office visits to neurologists, orthopedists and

2

physical therapists’ Plaintiff has been slowed down in his endeavors.” Id. Good cause appearing,

3

plaintiff’s motion will be granted in part and plaintiff will be given an additional 35 days to file

4

an opposition.

5

However, while the court is cognizant of plaintiff’s circumstances, the court will not

6

continue to indefinitely grant plaintiff’s requests for extension of time. Plaintiff has received a

7

60-day extension of time, and the court is now granting plaintiff an additional 35 days to file his

8

opposition. Accordingly, no further extensions of time will be granted.

9

Finally, as noted in this court’s prior order, plaintiff should be prepared to discuss his

10

particular medical needs with regard to scheduling further deadlines during the rescheduled

11

hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss.

12

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, ECF No. 14, is granted in part and plaintiff is

14
15
16
17
18

granted 35 days to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss;
2. The December 3, 2014 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is vacated and
rescheduled to January 7, 2015;
3. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss is due by December 24, 2014,
see Local Rule 230(c);

19

4. Defendant’s reply, if any, is due by December 31, 2014; and

20

5. The January 7, 2015 initial scheduling conference is vacated and rescheduled to March

21

4, 2015.

22

DATED: November 19, 2014

23
24
25
26
27
28
2