Cuviello et al v. City Of Oakland et al
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 159 Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Order to Modify Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs shall have until 12:00 p.m., February 20, 2009, to file a response to the SMG Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The response to the City Defendants' motion remains due today. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2009)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ Plaintiffs have asked the Court for an extension of time to file a response to the SMG Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that that motion was not timely served on Mr. Cuviello. The SMG Defendants do not oppose an extension for Mr. Cuviello but object to an extension of time for Ms. Bolbol since she was timely served and is represented by counsel. While the Court is not entirely unsympathetic to the SMG Defendants' position, as a practical matter, it makes no sense as Plaintiffs wish to file a joint brief. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' request for an extension. Plaintiffs shall have until 12:00 p.m., February 20, 2009, to file a response to the SMG Defendants' motion. The response to the City Defendants' motion remains due today. This order disposes of Docket No. 159. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2009 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge JOSEPH P. CUVIELLO, et al., Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER (Docket No. 159) No. C-06-5517 MHP (EMC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
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?