Reynoso et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 134

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND SETTING HEARING DATE; VACATING TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL DATES. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/18/2013. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

MALAQUIAS REYNOSO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

No. C 10-00984 MEJ
ORDER SETTING DEADLINES AND
HEARING DATE

9
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
et al.,

11

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

13
On August 5, 2013, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to file a joint status report
14
after completion of the settlement process or no later than September 3, 2013. Dkt. No. 128. On
15
September 3, 2013, Defendants filed a status report; Plaintiffs did not join or file any response. Dkt.
16
No. 129.
17
Thereafter, on September 4, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report by
18
September 6, 2013, setting forth counsel’s availability for a further settlement conference and
19
proposing a briefing schedule for the pending summary judgment motions. Dkt. No. 130. Again,
20
Defendants filed a status report, indicating that Plaintiffs failed to join. Dkt. 131. Subsequently, on
21
September 13, 2013, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition to Motions for
22
Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 132. Although unable to join in the prior status reports, this filing
23
prompted Plaintiffs to file a document entitled, “Notice to the Court, the Case Settlement Judge, and
24
Opposing Counsel Regarding Plaintiff’s Oppositions to Summary Judgment Motions,” wherein
25
Plaintiffs indicated that “Plaintiffs’ counsel wishes to inform the Court, our Settlement Judge, and
26
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Metlitzky, stating what is obvious, the oppositions are not quite finished.”
27
Dkt. No. 133 at 2. Plaintiffs’ counsel further indicated that he needed “five or six hours” to complete
28
the briefs and indicated that they would be filed by September 14, 2013. Id.

1

To date, Plaintiffs have not filed their oppositions.

2

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows.

3

Plaintiffs shall file any oppositions to the pending Motions for Summary Judgment no later

4 than 5:00 p.m. on September 20, 2013. No further extensions shall be granted.
5

Defendants’ reply briefs shall be due October 17, 2013.

6

The Court SETS the Motions for Summary Judgment for hearing at 10:00 a.m. on November

7 14, 2013.
8

The trial date and all other pre-trial deadlines are VACATED and will be reset after the Court

9 rules on the Motions for Summary Judgment.
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: September 18, 2013
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2