Forte Capital Partners, LLC v. Harris Cramer LLP et al

Filing 190

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 131 Ex Parte Application; denying 132 Ex Parte Application; granting 158 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2008) Modified on 12/29/2008 (kc, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORTE CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS CRAMER, LLP, et al., Defendant. / No. 07-01237 SBA ORDER [Docket No. 131, 132, 158] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Before the Court is Defendant Harris Cramer's Motion to Extend Date to Have Dispositive Motions Heard [Docket No. 131], which is unopposed. Also before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion Extending Motion Cut-off Date [Docket No. 132] and Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 158]. The plaintiff's motions are also unopposed, with one minor exception. In Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file its opposition brief to the defendants' summary judgment motions, Plaintiff requests either an extension to December 30, 2008, or to January 6, 2009. Neither the Harris Cramer Defendants nor the Frank Rosen Defendants oppose the extension in principle, although the Frank Rosen Defendants prefer the extension to January 6, 2009. By considering the plaintiff's motion to alter the briefing schedule for the dispositive motions, currently set for hearing on January 13, 2009, the Court also necessarily considers its effect on the other pending motions set forth above. All parties are aware that an extension of the time by which to file the Opposition briefs to the motions for summary judgment necessarily affects the briefing and hearing schedule for the motions. However, the plaintiff also emphasizes that a grant of their motion should have no effect on the pre-trial dates. In order to accomplish this, the motions should be heard by January 30, 2009, the date of the parties' mandatory pre-trial settlement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conference before Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. It is HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file the oppositions to motions for summary judgment is GRANTED [Docket No. 158] and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the following deadlines are amended as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' motions for summary judgment, previously due on December 23, 2008, must be filed on or before December 30, 2008. 2. Defendants' reply briefs, previously due on December 30, 2008, must be filed on or before January 6, 2009. 3. The hearing on the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment, currently schedule for January 13, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. is CONTINUED to January 20, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. [Docket No. 131]. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion to extend the motion deadline is DENIED. [Docket No. 132]. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 12/24/08 ____________________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 2

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?