Rahimi et al v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO STRIKE re 30 Memorandum in Opposition,,,, filed by Hayward Unified School District. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 6/17/2009. (mejlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009)

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 This matter is currently scheduled for a hearing on June 25, 2009 regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from the California Government Tort Claim Filing Requirements. (Dkt. #13.) On June 11, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a further declaration of counsel and objections to certain declarations filed by Defendant Hayward Unified School District. (Dkt. ##26, 27, 29.) Hayward has now filed objections to Plaintiffs' reply pleadings, (Dkt. #30), arguing that they are improper under Civil Local Rule 7-7(d). Specifically, Hayward argues that any reply papers that Plaintiffs wished to file were due 14 days before June 4, 2009, which was the scheduled hearing date prior to the parties' stipulated request to continue the hearing to June 25. (Dkt. #24.) Thus, under Local Rule 7-3(c), any reply must have been filed by May 21, 2009. As Plaintiffs failed to file a reply by May 21, and the parties filed their stipulation to continue the hearing date on June 1, 2009, Hayward argues that Local Rule 7-7(d) prohibits the filing of any reply without a court order. Upon review of Hayward's objections, the Court agrees that Plaintiff's reply pleadings are RAHIMI, Plaintiff(s), vs. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORP., et al., Defendant(s). / FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 08-4712 MEJ ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' REPLY PLEADINGS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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 untimely. The Order of continuance to the June 25, 2009 hearing date was June 1, 2009, at which point Plaintiffs had not filed a reply. Thus, the reply papers were due before the Order of continuance and, under Rule 7-7(d), the time to file reply papers was not extended. Accordingly, all of Plaintiffs' reply papers filed on June 11, 2009 should be stricken. However, because Civil Local Rule 7 dos not grant Hayward the opportunity to file any response to Plaintiffs' reply, and because Hayward shall have the opportunity to address Plaintiffs' reply pleadings at the June 25 hearing, the Court finds that Hayward is not prejudiced by the untimely filings. Accordingly, so that the Court may proceed on the merits of Plaintiffs' motion, Hayward's request to strike Plaintiffs' June 11 filings is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 17, 2009 MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate 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?