Gillis et al v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 104

ORDER RE: 100 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/28/10. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2010)

Gillis et al v. City & County of San Francisco et al

Doc. 104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

**E-filed 9/28/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION CHARLES GILLIS, et al., v. Plaintiffs, No. C 08-3871 RS ORDER RE MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

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

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. Defendants. ____________________________________/ Defendants have filed a motion seeking "clarification" that their motion for summary judgment, presently set for hearing on October 21, 2010, is timely, or, in the alternative, for an order extending the deadline for hearing such motions such that it would be timely. The time for filing opposition to defendants' administrative motion has expired, and plaintiffs have not responded. The judge previously presiding over this case set a deadline for dispositive motions to be heard by September 14, 2010. Defense counsel mistakenly calendared that date as the deadline for such motions to be filed. The order reassigning this matter to the undersigned vacated any thenpending hearing dates, but provided for "[a]ll discovery cutoff dates and other deadlines associated with this case" to remain in effect.1 The reassignment order issued in contemplation of a case Defendants' argument that the reassignment order had the effect of lifting the September 14, 2010 deadline is unavailing. That was a deadline for hearing dispositive motions that the order did not alter, not a then-pending scheduled hearing date that was vacated.
1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

management conference being held in short order to address the status of the discovery cutoff and other deadlines that remained in effect. Because a motion to bifurcate and sever claims had to be resolved, the case management conference was delayed, and now is not scheduled to be held until October 21, 2010. Under all the circumstances here, good cause exists to deem defendants' motion for summary judgment to be timely. The parties' respective positions as to whether and to what extent additional discovery should be permitted to go forward notwithstanding the close of discovery under the prior judge's scheduling order will be addressed at the upcoming case management conference. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding whether the hearing on the summary judgment motion should be continued by stipulation in the interim.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/28/10 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2