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

Filing 139

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' OCTOBER 16, 2013 FILING 138 ; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 17, 2013 HEARING. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/16/2013. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

MALAQUIAS REYNOSO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.
9

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ OCTOBER
16, 2013 FILING [Dkt. No. 138];
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
et al.,

11

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

No. C 10-00984 MEJ

13
Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Dkt. Nos. 105,
14
109, 114. After Plaintiffs failed to file an opposition to the Motions despite representations that
15
oppositions briefs would be filed, on September 18, 2013, the Court issued an Order setting the
16
opposition deadline for September 20, 2013. Dkt. No. 134. To date, no oppositions have been filed.
17
Consequently, Defendants requested that the Court rule on the pending Motions. Dkt. Nos. 135, 136.
18
The hearing on the Motions is currently set for October 17, 2013. Dkt. No. 137.
19
On October 16, 2013 – the day before the hearing date and nearly four weeks after the
20
September 20 deadline for opposition briefs – Plaintiffs filed a Notice advising the Court and
21
opposing counsel that they “do oppose all three motions for summary judgment filed by defendants,
22
and will file late opposition [sic] to each motion today October 16, 2013, and will be fully prepared to
23
argue the merits of the oppositions at the 10:00 a.m. hearing, October 17, 2013.” Dkt. No. 138 at 1-2.
24
Plaintiffs then proceed to state that, “If the Court suggests that a motion for administrative relief is
25
required under the circumstances, counsel will file the motion immediately. For now counsel will
26
just summarize the circumstances that contributed to the untimeliness of the filing[.]” Id. at 2.
27
Plaintiffs’ disregard of deadlines set by this Court and by the Civil Local Rules, and their
28
strategy of selectively participating in this lawsuit will not be tolerated. Plaintiffs had ample time to

1 file an opposition brief, yet they allowed the deadline to lapse, failed to request any extension of that
2 deadline, and are now under the impression that they may file oppositions and proceed with the
3 hearing without allowing Defendants – who have complied with all stated deadlines – an opportunity
4 to file a reply, unless the Court suggests that a motion for administrative relief is required.
5 Construing Plaintiffs’ unauthorized filing as a request for leave to file late oppositions, their request
6 is DENIED. Any oppositions that Plaintiffs file will be stricken from the record.
7

The Court hereby VACATES the hearing set for October 17, 2013 and ORDERS as follows.

8

The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Keith Oliver, to show cause as to why the Court

9 should allow Plaintiffs to file the untimely oppositions and as to why the Court should not impose
10 sanctions against him. In filing his response to the OSC, Mr. Oliver must provide evidence

12 filing deadline; his declaration – without more – will not suffice. Mr. Oliver’s response to the OSC
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 substantiating any proffered explanation of obstacles that prevented him from complying with the

13 shall be filed no later than October 24, 2013. Defendants may file an optional response to Mr.
14 Oliver’s filing by October 30, 2013.. The Court sets a hearing on the OSC for October 31, 2013, at
15 10:00 a.m. , in Courtroom B
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18 Dated: October 16, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2