Drake v. Niello Company et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/24/2017 VACATING the 8/9/2017 Hearing on the 83 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the pleadings and GRANTING-IN-PART 96 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall f ile an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' 83 Motion and a Response to the court's 90 Order to Show Cause by 8/30/2017. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 9/4/2017. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 97 Motion to Transfer Venue no later than 8/9/2017. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendants' opposition, if any, on or before 8/30/2017. (Donati, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-1036-JAM-EFB PS
THE NIELLO COMPANY, NIELLO
IMPORTS OF ROCKLIN, INC., NIELLO
PERFORMANCE MOTORS INC.,
NIELLO MOTOR CAR COMPANY,
AND SHIPPING EXPERTS INC.,
Plaintiff has filed a motion to stay this case (ECF No. 95), a motion to continue the
August 9 hearing on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 96), and a
motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 97). In the first two motions, plaintiff essentially seeks
additional time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion and his response to the court’s June 20,
2017 order to show cause. In support of his request, plaintiff submits a physician note indicating
that he is scheduled to undergo surgery this month and will require multiple months to fully
Plaintiff’s pleading states that the physician’s note is to be “Filed Under Seal.” ECF
No. 95 at 8. Plaintiff, however, failed to file a proper request to seal in compliance with Local
In light of the letter from plaintiff’s physician, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time
(ECF No. 96) is granted in part, and he shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to
defendants’ motion and his response the order to show cause by no later than August 28, 2017.
His request to stay the case (ECF No. 95) is denied.
As for plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue, he failed to properly notice the motion for
hearing in violation of Local Rule 230(b). Defendants are directed to file an opposition or
statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion by July 21, 2017. Plaintiff may file a reply by
August 28, 2017.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The August 9, 2017 hearing on defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings
(ECF No. 83) is vacated;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 96) is granted in part, and he shall
file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion and a response the court’s
June 20, 2016 order to show cause by no later than August 30, 2017.
3. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before September 4,
4. Defendants shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion
to transfer venue no later than August 9, 2017.
5. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendants’ opposition, if any, on or before August 30,
6. Thereafter, both defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and plaintiff’s
motion to transfer venue will stand submitted for decision.
DATED: July 24, 2017.
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?