Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al
Filing
78
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 10/18/16 ORDERING that plaintiff's 76 Application for Order Shortening Time is DENIED; the 75 Motion to Strike REMAINS as noticed for 11/17/16. On its own motion, the Court CONSOL IDATES all pending 64 , 65 , 71 motions and CONTINUES those hearings to 11/17/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7 (MCE) before District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Plaintiff's deadline to file an Opposition to defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss is EXTENDED to 11/03/16; should plaintiff require additional time beyond 11/03/16, the Court anticipates that the parties will be able to stipulate to an additional extension. (Benson, A)
1
5
Joseph M. Alioto (SBN 42680)
Jamie L. Miller (SBN 271452)
ALIOTO LAW FIRM
One Sansome Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-434-8900
Facsimile: 415-434-9200
Email: jmiller@aliotolaw.com
Email: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
SHARIDAN STILES, et al.,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
17
WAL-MART STORES, INC, et al.,
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
_____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.:
2:14-cv-2234-MCE-CMK
PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION
FOR AN ORDER
SHORTENING TIME TO
HEAR MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS’ SECOND
MOTION TO DISMISS
DECLARATION OF JAMIE L.
MILLER
ORDER SHORTENING TIME
The Honorable Morrison C.
England, Jr.
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike
1
2
3
APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 144(e), Plaintiffs Sharidan Stiles and Stiles 4 U, Inc.
(hereafter “Stiles” or “Plaintiff”) respectfully applies for an order shortening time to hear its
4
Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss, filed concurrently. The undersigned
5
6
counsel contacted counsel for the Defendants on October 9, 2016, to obtain their position on
7
this application to shorten time. Counsel for Walmart, Laura Chapman, advised that she
8
“anticipate[s] that we oppose the ex parte.” She also stated that she is traveling to North
9
Carolina for a two-day trial. As of the filing of this Application, counsel for AI has not
10
11
responded. (Miller Decl., ¶ 4).
Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an Order in response to this Application
12
13
14
providing that any responses to the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss
be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2016, that any reply in support of the Motion to
15
Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss be filed by 5:00 p.m. on October 13, 2016, and
16
that the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss be heard as soon as the Court
17
is available to hear it.
18
This Court has authority to shorten time to hear the Motion to Strike Defendants’
19
Second Motion to Dismiss. Rule 6(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the
20
21
time for hearings on noticed motions “except[]…when a court order—which a party may, for
22
good cause, apply for ex parte—sets a different time.” Fed. R. Ci. P. 6(c)(1); see also United
23
States v. Fitch, 472 F.2d 548, 549 n.5 (9th Cir. 1973) (citing former Rule 6(c) and explaining
24
that this rule “allows the district court discretion to shorten time.”) The Local Civil Rules for
25
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recognize this authority, and
26
provide that “applications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the
27
circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time.” Local R. 144(e).
28
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike
1
1
2
3
Good cause exists for this application. On October 6, 2016, Defendants filed a second
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 71) that violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2) because it makes
arguments that were available to them when the first Motion to Dismiss was filed.
4
Defendants filed the first Motion to Dismiss two months ago on August 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 64
5
6
and 65.) Plaintiffs filed an Opposition over a month ago on September 6, 2016. (Dkt. No.
7
69.) Briefing on that motion completed on October 7, 2016 (Dkt. No. 73 and 74.) In good
8
faith, counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants, and the parties stipulated
9
on a briefing schedule and a hearing date for the first Motion to Dismiss that accommodated
10
11
the parties’ existing conflicts in other matters. (Dkt. No. 66 and 68.) A Second Motion to
Dismiss was never mentioned during the course of those discussions. (Miller Decl., ¶ 3.) Any
12
13
14
opposition to Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss would otherwise be due on October 20,
2016, and thus, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court hear the Motion to Strike before
15
any opposition to the Second Motion to Dismiss is due. In addition, having previously worked
16
out a schedule for briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, counsel for Plaintiffs now have conflicts
17
in other matters that would require additional time to file an opposition to the Second Motion
18
to Dismiss, if the Motion is not stricken. (Miller Decl., ¶ 3.)
19
//
20
21
//
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike
2
1
2
3
Plaintiffs thus respectfully request that this Court exercise the authority granted to it by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(1) and Local Civil Rule 144(e) here and shorten the time by which the
Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss will be briefed and heard.
4
Respectfully submitted:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Dated: October 10, 2016
ALIOTO LAW FIRM
/s Jamie L. Miller
Jamie L. Miller (SBN 271452)
Joseph M. Alioto (SBN 42680)
ALIOTO LAW FIRM
One Sansome Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-434-8900
Facsimile: 415-434-9200
Email: jmiller@aliotolaw.com
Email: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs Sharidan Stiles and Stiles
4 U, Inc.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike
3
1
2
3
DECLARATION OF JAMIE L. MILLER
I, Jamie L. Miller, declare as follows:
1. I am an associate of the Alioto Law Firm, counsel of record for Plaintiff
4
Sharidan Stiles and Stiles 4 U, Inc. I make this Declaration pursuant to Local Rule 144(e) and
5
6
in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss.
7
2. Concurrent with this application, Plaintiff has moved to strike Defendants’
8
Second Motion to Dismiss. The Second Motion to Dismiss violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2),
9
raising arguments that should have been made two months ago when the First Motions to
10
11
Dismss were filed on August 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 64 and 65.)
3. Good cause exists to grant this application. Counsel for Plaintiff conferred
12
13
14
with counsel for Defenant in good faith regarding a briefing schedule and a hearing date on
the First Motion to Dismiss. Defendants never disclosed that they planned to file a second
15
Motion to Dismiss during the course of those discussions or as part of the briefing schedule.
16
Plaintiffs’ opposition to the second Motion to Dismiss would otherwise be due on October 20,
17
and Plaintiffs request that this Court hear the matter before any opposition woudl be due.
18
Further, having relied on the schedule set forth by the parties, Plaintiffs now have conflicts in
19
other matters, including: (1) a complaint and motion for injunctive relief to be filed this week
20
21
in the Northern District of California; (2) a motion for reconsideration due on or before
22
October 14, 2016, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; (3) and
23
preparation for and attendance at a hearing for injunctive relief on October 19, 2016, in the
24
Northern District of California.
25
26
4. On October 9, 2016, I sent counsel for the Defendants an electronic mail at the
email addreses of record notifying them of Plaintiffs intent to seek an ex parte application to
27
shorten time in this Court. Counsel for Walmart, Laura Chapman, advised that she
28
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike
4
1
“anticipate[s] that we oppose the ex parte.” She also stated that she is traveling to North
2
Carolina for a two-day trial. As of the filing of this Application, counsel for AI has not
3
responded.
4
I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
5
6
7
that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on October 10,
2016, at San Francisco, California.
8
9
10
/s/ Jamie L. Miller
Jamie L. Miller
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike
5
1
ORDER
2
3
The parties to this action have had a Motion to Dismiss pending before this Court and
4
set to be heard on November 3, 2016 for some time. On October 6, 2016, Defendant Wal-
5
Mart Stores, Inc. filed a second Motion to Dismiss additional claims in Plaintiff’s Second
6
Amended Complaint (which motion was joined by Defendant American International
7
Industries, Inc.), also noticed for November 3, 2016. On October 10, 2016 Plaintiffs Sharidan
8
Stiles and Stiles 4 U, Inc. filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss,
9
noticed for November 17, 2016, as well as an Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening
10
Time to Hear that Motion to Strike.
11
12
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time is DENIED; Plaintiff’s Motion to
Strike will be heard as noticed on November 17, 2016.
13
On its own motion, the Court hereby consolidates all pending motions and continues
14
those currently noticed for November 3, 2016 to November 17, 2016. Plaintiff’s deadline to
15
file an Opposition to Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss is therefore extended from
16
October 20 to November 3, 2016. Should Plaintiff require additional time beyond
17
November 3, the Court anticipates that the parties will be able to stipulate to an additional
18
extension.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2016
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike
6
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?