Cazet et al v. Epps et al

Filing 85

ORDER GRANTING AS MODIFIED 81 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 3/28/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2011)

Cazet et al v. Epps et al

Doc. 85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Craig M. Stainbrook, Calif. State Bar #160876 STAINBROOK & STAINBROOK, LLP 412 Aviation Boulevard, Suite H Santa Rosa, California 95403 707.578.9333 phone [phone] fax E-mail: [e-mail] Robert B. Golden admitted pro hac vice LACKENBACH SIEGEL LLP Lackenbach Siegel Building One Chase Road Scarsdale, New York 10583 914.723.4300 phone [phone] fax E-mail: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaimants TOPPA EPPS, CAMMERON RIPLEY, EDWARD HAYMAN, and AAUSA, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
ROBERT L. CAZET, an individual, et al. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C 10-02460 JSW v. [PROPOSED] Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Extend or Clarify the Time to File Motions for Summary Judgment, Pursuant to Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, and 7-11 , AS MODIFIED

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

TOPPA EPPS, an individual, et al. Defendants.

TOPPA EPPS, an individual, et al. Counterclaimants, v. ROBERT L. CAZET, an individual, et al. Counterdefendants.

LR-6-3, 7-1, and 7-11

28 [PROPOSED] Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Extend or Clarify the Time to File Motions for Summary Judgment, Pursuant to Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, and 7-11
Dockets.Justia.com

1

1 2

ORDER Defendants have submitted a Motion to Extend or Clarify the Time to File Motions for

3

Summary Judgment, Pursuant To Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, And 7-11, a Memorandum of Points and
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Extend or Clarify the Time to File Motions for Summary Judgment, Pursuant to Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, and 7-11

Authorities and Declaration of Craig Stainbrook in Support of said Motion. Plaintiffs filed a timely Opposition to said Motion. After consideration of the briefs and all other matters presented to the Court, and in the exercise of the Court's broad discretion over all pre-trial activities (Polar Bear Prods. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 719 (9th Cir.)), so as to give effect to the purposes of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure and permit motions for summary judgment, if any, to be brought timely after conclusion of discovery, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Extend or Clarify The Time To File Motions For Summary Judgment, Pursuant To Local Rules 6-3, 7-1, And 7-11 is GRANTED. The date by which the parties must files their opening summary judgment briefs is hereby extended until May 16, 2011. All other dates shall remain unchanged. as follows: the parties shall meet and confer on a briefing schedule on cross-motions for summary judgment whereby the opening brief on one party's summary judgment motion shall be filed by May 20, 2011; the other party shall file its opposition and opening cross-summary judgment brief by June 3, 2011; the reply in support of the opening motion and opposition to the cross-motion must be filed by June 17, 2011; the reply in support of the cross motion must be filed by June 24, 2011.
The hearing on the motions for summary judgment is continued from June 10, 2011 to July 15, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. It is further ordered that the trial date is continued from September 12, 2011 to November 28, 2011. Any other scheduling matters must be addressed in the parties' joint statement filed in advance of the further case management conference set for April 15, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 28, 2011 _________________________________ JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge

2