Parish et al v. Avida et al

Filing 11

ORDER re Briefing Schedule and Hearing on Defendant Unterberg's Motion to Consolidate and Stay. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/13/2007. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2007)

Parish et al v. Avida et al

Doc. 11

Case 3:07-cv-00698-EMC

Document 11

Filed 02/13/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 INDIANA STATE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LABORERS AND HOD CARRIERS PENSION FUND, Derivatively on Behalf of Electronics for Imaging, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GUY GECHT, et al., Defendants. and ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., a Delaware Corporation Nominal Defendant. ___________________________________/ CITY OF ANN ARBOR EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GUY GECHT, et al., Defendants. and ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., a Delaware Corporation Nominal Defendant. ___________________________________/ No. C-06-7453 EMC No. C-06-7274 EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND HEARING ON DEFENDANT UNTERBERG'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND STAY

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-00698-EMC

Document 11

Filed 02/13/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TRUEMAN PARISH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAN AVIDA, et al. Defendants. and ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., a Delaware Corporation Nominal Defendant. ___________________________________/

No. C-07-0698 MEJ

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court has related three lawsuits filed in this District: (1) Indiana State District Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension Fund v. Gecht, No. C-06-7274 EMC; (2) City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Gecht, No. C-06-7453 EMC; and (3) Parish v. Avida, No. C-070698 EMC. Currently pending is Defendant Thomas I. Unterberg's motion to consolidate all three actions and to stay the cases (excepting the motion to remand in the Ann Arbor case) pending resolution of the motion to consolidate and filing of consolidated complaint. Although Mr. Unterberg has labeled the motion an administrative motion, it is not properly characterized as such. See Civ. L.R. 7-11 (providing that, in the course of proceedings, a party may need a court order with respect to a miscellaneous administrative matter not otherwise governed by, inter alia, a Federal or Local Rule; noting that administrative motions are motions such as those to exceed page limitations or to file documents under seal). The Court therefore treats the motion as a motion governed by Civil Local Rule 7-2. On the other hand, because Mr. Unterberg is asking for a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the motion to consolidate, the Court will shorten time on the request for a stay. Any opposition to the motion to stay shall be filed by February 21, 2007. Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will rule on the motion to stay on the papers.

2

Case 3:07-cv-00698-EMC

Document 11

Filed 02/13/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

As for the motion to consolidate, it shall be heard on March 14, 2007, at 10:30 a.m. The initial case management conference for all three actions shall be rescheduled for the same day and time. Any opposition to the motion to consolidate shall be filed by February 26, 2007, and a reply by March 5, 2007. Although this hearing date gives Plaintiffs only thirty days notice, and not thirtyfive, see Civ. L.R. 7-2, it will not unduly prejudice them. Similarly, although this briefing schedule does not comport with Civil Local Rule 7-3, it will not unduly prejudice either Plaintiffs or Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2007 EDWARD M. CHEN United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3