Smith et al v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Filing 292

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 9/9/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM A. SMITH and JOSE LEMUS, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant. / ORDER CONTINUING HEARING No. C 07-02126 JSW

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

Now before the Court is the motion to re-open the case filed by defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E"). PG&E referenced Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) generally and 60(b)(6) specifically. In their opposition, Plaintiffs argue that PG&E fails to meet the standard under Rule 60(b)(6). In its reply, PG&E clarified that it is moving pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). In the interest of fairness, the Court will provide Plaintiffs an opportunity to address whether PG&E satisfies the standard under Rule 60(b)(1). Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental opposition no longer than four pages by no later than September 23, 2009. The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing on PG&E's motion to October 9, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2009

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

28 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

1

2