Bailey v. Enloe Medical Center

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/13/2020 STRIKING 42 Motion to Strike and 43 Motion for Leave to Amend, and DENYING 45 Motion for 1-Day Extension of Time as untimely. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAN BAILEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-CV-0055-KJM-DMC

v.

ORDER

ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for wrongful

17
18

termination. Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant’s motion

19

for summary judgment (ECF No. 42); (2) plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 43);

20

and (3) plaintiff’s motion for a one-day extension of time (ECF No. 45).
Plaintiff’s motion to strike and motion for leave to amend will be stricken

21
22

because they were not properly noticed. Except in cases where one party is incarcerated and

23

proceeding pro se, all motions must be noticed for hearing on the assigned Magistrate Judge’s

24

or District Judge’s calendar. See Local Rule 230(b), (l). Here, neither motion was noticed for

25

hearing.

26

Plaintiff’s motion for a one-day extension of time will be denied as late. On

27

December 4, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s prior motion for an extension of time to

28

December 6, 2019, to file an opposition to defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment.
1

1

No opposition was filed by that date. On December 27, 2019 – three weeks after expiration of

2

the previously extended deadline – plaintiff filed the instant motion for an additional extension

3

of time. Because the motion was filed after the deadline sought to be extended, it is untimely

4

and will be denied as such.1
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which is unopposed at this time, will

5
6

be addressed by separate findings and recommendations.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9

to amend (ECF No. 43) are stricken; and

10
11

Plaintiff’s motion to strike (ECF No. 42) and plaintiff’s motion for leave

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for a one-day extension of time (ECF No. 45) is denied

as untimely.

12
13
14

Dated: January 13, 2020
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Plaintiff states the additional day is needed in order to obtain notarized signatures on his
opposition. Plaintiff’s motion thus fails to establish the need for an extension because notarized signatures are not
required on an opposition to a motion.

2