Mixt Greens v. Sprout Cafe

Filing 89

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 84 Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. SPROUT CAFÉ, Defendant. ___________________________________/ MIXT GREENS, Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME (Docket No. 84) No. C-08-5175 EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, which it seeks to have heard on shortened time. In the proposed amendment, Plaintiff seeks to add as additional defendants Tu Ha Huynh and Vinh Vi, the co-owners of Defendant. Plaintiff also seeks to add as a defendant Café Sprout, Inc., doing business as Sprout Café. Under a regularly noticed schedule, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend would not be heard until July 28, 2010. Plaintiff asks that the motion be heard on shortened time because fact discovery in the case is slated to close on July 14, 2010, and expert discovery on August 30, 2010. Defendant failed to file a timely opposition to Plaintiff's request for shortened time. See Civ. L.R. 6-3(c) (providing that an opposition to a motion to shorten time shall be filed "no later than 4 days after receiving the motion").1 In the interest of justice, however, the Court has considered the merits of Defendant's untimely opposition. 1 The Court notes that, even after Defendant failed to file a timely opposition under the Civil Local Rules, it gave Defendant one final opportunity to provide any opposition by a date and time certain (i.e., by noon of June 28, 2010). Defendant failed to provide a submission by that date and time. His submission was almost half an hour late. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Having considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS the request for shortened time. Given the upcoming discovery deadlines, it is appropriate to have the motion heard on an accelerated basis. Moreover, the Court cannot discern any unfair prejudice to Defendant by having the motion heard on an expedited basis, particularly given the following briefing schedule which affords Defendant almost the full two weeks to file an opposition. Accordingly, the Court sets the motion for leave to amend for hearing on July 14, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. Defendant's opposition shall be filed by July 2, 2010, and Plaintiff's reply by July 7, 2010. The Court acknowledges that the hearing on the motion will be held on the same day as the fact discovery cut-off. However, the July 7 hearing date requested by Plaintiff cannot be accommodated by the Court. Moreover, in fairness to Defendant, more than a week's time should be given to file an opposition. Should the Court grant Plaintiff's motion, however, it is willing to entertain a request to extend the fact discovery cut-off if there is good case for such. This order disposes of Docket No. 84. 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: June 28, 2010 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 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?