Steinhart v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 100

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S THIRD REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION. Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2013 01:30 PM and Further Case Management Conference set for 5/9/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/8/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 SALLY STEINHART, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 No. C 10-00841 RS ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S THIRD REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION v. DEPUTY SHERIFFS M. SHANAHAN, BRIAN K. COVINGTON, CAROLYN JAAP, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ 18 Defendant Caroline Jaap’s summary judgment motion was noticed for hearing on April 11, 19 2013. Plaintiff Sally Steinhart twice moved for, and received, extensions of her deadline for filing 20 an opposition to the motion. The second extension continued her deadline for filing her opposition 21 until April 3, 2013. Steinhart failed to file an opposition by that date. Instead, two days later, she 22 filed a “separate supplemental case management statement” in which she argued that the motion for 23 summary judgment had not been noticed properly due to defendant’s late correction of Exhibit B to 24 the Declaration of Maureen Furlong. Steinhart therefore requested that the summary judgment 25 hearing (and her deadline for filing an opposition to the motion) be continued. Without ruling on 26 the merits of that argument, it is clear that Steinhart’s repeated failure to meet even extended 27 deadlines as well as the content of her case management statement demonstrate that she is 28 NO. C 10-00841-RS ORDER 1 unprepared to present the merits of her opposition to the motion for summary judgment at the 2 hearing as presently scheduled. 3 Her case management statement is construed as a third motion for an extension of time to 4 file her opposition. The further case management conference scheduled for Thursday, April 11, 5 2013, as well as the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment are hereby continued to 6 Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s opposition brief must be filed on or before 7 Thursday, April 25, 2013. No further extensions or continuances will be granted to plaintiff. 8 Failure to meet the April 25, 2013, filing deadline will result in the waiver of her opportunity to 9 submit a written response to the motion for summary judgment. Defendant’s reply brief, if any, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 must be filed on or before Thursday, May 2, 2013. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: 4/8/13 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO. C 12-04548-RS ORDER 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?