Brantley et al v. Boyd et al

Filing 189

ORDER granting fifteen-day continuance for Plaintiffs to file supplemental reply brief.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 3/15/2011. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2011)

Brantley et al v. Boyd et al

Doc. 189

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LARRY TYRONE BRANTLEY, SR., ELLEN ) BRANTLEY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) GARRETT BOYD, MODO REALTY, INC., ) ROYAL CROWN MORTGAGE, SERGEI ) KLYAZMIN, ACADEMY ESCROW, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ )

Case No. 07-6139 SC ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On January 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Larry Brantley and Ellen Brantley ("Plaintiffs") filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendants Modo Realty, Inc., Royal Crown Mortgage, and Sergei Klyazmin (collectively, "Defendants"). ("Mot."). 2011. ECF No. 168

The hearing on the Motion was scheduled for February 11, ECF No.

Defendants filed an Opposition on January 28, 2011.

178 ("Opp'n").

Plaintiffs immediately filed a two-page "Reply to ECF No. 186 ("Reply").

Late Filing of [Defendants'] Opposition."

In their Reply, Plaintiffs note that Defendants filed their Opposition only fourteen days before the date of the hearing instead of the twenty-one days before the date of the hearing required by Civil Local Rule 7-3. Reply at 2. The date on which

Defendants filed their Opposition was in fact the same date on which, according to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiffs were required to file their Reply. Plaintiffs therefore did not have sufficient

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

time to consider the Opposition before entering their Reply. Plaintiffs ask the Court to disregard Defendants' Opposition and grant Plaintiffs' Motion due to Defendants' tardy filing. While the Court does not condone violations of the Civil Local Rules, it finds that the interests of justice would not be served by granting Plaintiffs' Motion due to Defendants' filing error. Rather, the Court finds it appropriate to grant a fifteen-day continuance to allow Plaintiffs to file a supplemental reply to Defendants' Opposition if they so desire. The Court also puts

Defendants on notice that further violations of the Civil Local Rules will not be tolerated. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs a fifteen-day continuance to file a supplemental reply to Defendants' Opposition. Plaintiffs shall have until midnight on March 30, 2011 to file a supplemental reply if they so desire.

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2