Napoto v. DHL Express (USA) Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/17/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TAINA NAPOTO, Plaintiff, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., et al., Defendants. / On May 15, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Strike, which was noticed for hearing on June 26, 2009. Because that day was unavailable to the Court, on May 18, 2009, Defendants re-noticed the hearing date to July 17, 2009. Thereafter, this Court issued a briefing schedule based on the July 17, 2009 hearing date and ordered that Plaintiff's opposition would be due on June 5, 2009, and Defendants' reply brief would be due on June 12, 2009. On May 20, 2009, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss and to Strike, which superseded the motion filed on May 15, 2009. The Court directed Defendants to set forth in writing the nature of the amendments. Because it did not appear to the Court that the amendments changed the substance of the motion, it did not issue a new briefing order. However, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion on June 5, 2009. Rather, on June 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed an opposition and the instant request for administrative relief in which she IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. 09-01551 JSW ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

seeks leave of Court to file her opposition beyond the June 5, 2009 deadline.1 Although this would appear to be the type of dispute that could be resolved without Court intervention, Defendants oppose Plaintiff's request. According to Plaintiff, Defendants' amended motion engendered some confusion as to whether the Court's May 18, 2009 briefing schedule remained in place. Plaintiff, through counsel, did not seek to clarify this issue with Defendants until June 10, 2009, and did not seek to clarify the issue with the Court until June 11, 2009. Further, counsel offers no explanation for failing to seek relief from either the Defendants or this Court prior to the June 5, 2009 deadline, which would have been the prudent course of action. Defendants, in turn, fail to articulate any prejudice that would result from permitting Plaintiff the opportunity to file her brief. In light of the strong preference for litigating cases on their merits, and because the motion is not set for hearing until July 17, the Court grants Plaintiff's request and shall consider the opposition brief. However, Plaintiff and her counsel are hereby placed on notice that failure to comply with this Court's orders in the future may result in sanctions, including the rejection of untimely papers. Defendants shall be permitted to file a substantive reply to Plaintiff's opposition, which shall be due on June 24, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 17, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

On that same date, Defendants filed a reply brief, in which they argue, in part, that the motion should be granted because Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.
1

2