Tuttle et al v. Sky Bell Asset Management LLC et al

Filing 94

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR EXTENSION TO OPPOSE ER DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Alsup granting 92 Motion for Leave to File (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2011)

Tuttle et al v. Sky Bell Asset Management LLC et al

Doc. 94

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Yesterday, pursuant to the case management order in this matter, plaintiffs filed a précis regarding plaintiffs' request that the ER defendants' motion to dismiss be striken. As the précis points out, there is some urgency to this issue, as plaintiffs' deadline to oppose the motions to dismiss is tomorrow, March 17. The précis requests leave to file a motion to strike the ER defendants' motion to dismiss, or, alternatively, a short extension to file their opposition to the motion. The grounds for the short extension are that yesterday, preceding plaintiffs' précis, the ER defendants filed a "corrected and amended declaration of James Matthews" in support of their motion. Purportedly this was to replace Exhibit D to the declaration with a redacted version of the same exhibit, but -- upon inspection -- defendants also changed the contents of the declaration. In view of this maneuver, plaintiffs' request for a short extension to file their opposition to the ER defendants' motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' opposition to the ER SKY BELL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR EXTENSION TO OPPOSE ER DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS EDGAR W. TUTTLE, ERIC BRAUN, THE BRAUN FAMILY TRUST, and WENDY MEG SIEGEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, No. C 10-03588 WHA FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

defendants' motion is due on MARCH 21, 2011; the ER defendants' reply is still due on MARCH 24, 2011. This does not change the deadlines for briefing on the motion to dismiss of the other defendants. This ruling has no bearing on whether the ER defendants' motion will be striken for reasons stated in the order to show cause. Plaintiffs' request to file a motion to strike the ER defendants' motion seems to be equivalent to a request to oppose the ER defendants' submission in response to the order to show cause. That request is GRANTED, though plaintiffs shall style their submission as an opposition to the ER defendants' submission rather than as a separate motion. That submission shall be due on MARCH 24, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2