Azibo-boynton et al v. City of Pinole et al

Filing 39

ORDER re 37 Notice (Other) filed by Ifetayo R. Azibo-boynton, Estate of Levi B, Boynton, Jr. Order denying Plaintiffs' request to continue hearing and deadlines, and vacting hearing on motion to compel. (njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
EUREKA DIVISION
6
7
8
9
IFETAYO R. AZIBO-BOYNTON, et al.,

No. 3:10-cv-4151 RS (NJV)

Plaintiffs,
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

CITY OF PINOLE, et al.,

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING AND
DEADLINES (Docket No. 37) AND
VACATING HEARING

Defendants.
___________________________________/

15
16

This case was referred to the undersigned on August 24, 2011, for resolution of Defendants'

17

motion to compel (Docket No. 31) and any further discovery disputes. (Docket No. 32.) On

18

September 13, 2011, a Clerk's Notice was entered in this case, setting the motion to compel for

19

hearing on October 11, 2011, and stating that any opposition to the motion was due no later than

20

September 27, 2011. (Docket No. 36.) September 27, 2011, passed and no opposition to the motion

21

to compel was filed.

22

On October 4, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a request to continue the October 11, 2011 hearing date

23

and "related deadlines." (Docket No. 37.) Defendants filed objections the same day. (Docket No.

24

38.) In the request for a continuance, Plaintiffs' counsel states that she was initially scheduled to be

25

in trial on October 11, 2011, and therefore requested opposing counsel to stipulate to a continuance.

26

Plaintiffs' counsel states that during her conversations with opposing counsel beginning on

27

September 27, 2011, she was under the impression that the due date for filing her opposition would

28

move along with the new hearing date. She further states that on September 29, 2011, she became
aware that opposing counsel would agree to continue the hearing date, but not the date that the

1

opposition to the motion was due. Plaintiffs now request a continuance of the hearing on the motion

2

to compel, and also request that the dates for the response to the motion and the reply "be continued

3

in accordance with the new hearing date."

September 8, 2011, the filing dates for the response to a motion and the reply are not determined by

6

reference to the hearing date on the motion. Rather, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), "[a]ny

7

opposition to a motion must be served and filed not more than 14 days after the motion is served and

8

filed." Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(c), "[a]ny reply to an opposition must be served and filed by

9

the moving party not more than 7 days after the opposition is served and filed." Further, Civil Local

10

Rule 7-7 (d) provides that, "[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Court, the continuance of the hearing

11
For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs' counsel is informed that under the Civil Local Rules of this Court revised

5

United States District Court

4

of a motion does not extend the time for filing and serving the opposing papers or reply papers."

12

Accordingly, the Court finds that there was no basis for Plaintiffs' counsel's assumption that

13

discussions regarding continuing a hearing, begun on the day the opposition to the motion was due,

14

would result in an extension of time to file the opposition. The Court thus concludes that there is no

15

basis on which to grant Plaintiffs an extension of time to file their opposition. Plaintiffs' request for

16

an extension of time to file their opposition is HEREBY DENIED.

17

The Court finds that the motion to compel is suitable for resolution without oral argument.

18

Accordingly, the Court hereby takes the matter under submission on the papers pursuant to Local

19

Rule 7-1(b). The hearing on the motion to compel set for October 11, 2011, is HEREBY

20

VACATED. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request for a continuance of that hearing date is HEREBY

21

DENIED as moot.

22
23
24
Dated: October 5, 2011
25

__________________________
Nandor J. Vadas
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28

2