Liao v. United States of America et al

Filing 77

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PENDING MOTIONS (Docket Nos. 67, 68 and 72), GRANTING IN PART 73 Motion for Permission to Exceed Page Limits on Opening and Brief Moving to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaints; and DIRECTING United States to Notice Motion to Dismiss for Hearing on 4/6. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on Feburary 8, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 No. C 11-02494 JSW WANXIA LIAO, ORDER: Plaintiff, (1) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PENDING MOTIONS (DOCKET NOS. 67, 68 AND 72); v. 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 13 Defendants. (2) GRANTING IN PART UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FOR EXCESS PAGE LIMITS; AND 14 15 16 (3) DIRECTING UNITED STATES TO NOTICE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR HEARING ON APRIL 6, 2012 17 18 19 / 20 21 On November 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint in this action. 22 (Docket No. 35.) Defendants CNN and Wall Street Journal filed motions to dismiss and the 23 United States filed a motion to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant and for prefiling 24 screening. (Docket Nos. 40, 41 and 44.) After the case was reassigned to Judge Wilken, CNN 25 and Wall Street Journal refiled their motions to dismiss. (Docket Nos. 47 and 49.) 26 On December 23, 2011, Judge Wilken issued an Order denying as moot the motions to 27 dismiss filed at 40 and 41, and set a briefing schedule on Docket Nos. 44, 47, and 49. On 28 January 6, 2012, Judge Wilken issued a further order, granting Plaintiff’s request for an 1 extension of time to respond to the motions. By that Order, Plaintiff’s responses to all three 2 pending motions were due on January 27, 2012. 3 On January 9, 2012, after Judge Wilken recused herself from this case, the case was 4 reassigned to the undersigned Judge. Plaintiff did not file opposition briefs within the time 5 period required by Judge Wilken’s Order. 6 However, on February 3, 2012, rather than merely re-noticing the pending motions to 7 dismiss, CNN and the Wall Street Journal refiled the motions in their entirety and noticed them 8 for hearing on March 9, 2012, a date that was unavailable to the Court. (See Docket Nos. 67, 9 68.) The United States also refiled its motion to have Plaintiff declared a vexatious litigant, and it noticed the motion for hearing on March 16, 2012, a date that also was not available to the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Court. (See Docket No. 72.) All three of those motions are now re-noticed for hearing on April 12 6, 2012. 13 These motions have been pending since December 2011. However, because of the 14 possible confusion created by the reassignment and refiling of motions, the Court issues a final 15 and brief extension of the briefing schedule. Therefore, Plaintiff shall file her opposition briefs 16 to the motions to dismiss filed by CNN and the Wall Street Journal by February 22, 2012. The 17 Defendants’ reply briefs shall be due on February 29, 2012. Plaintiff also shall file her 18 opposition to the United States’ motion to declare her a vexatious litigant by February 22, 19 2012. The United States’ reply brief shall be due on February 29, 2012. 20 The United States has filed an administrative motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss 21 exceeding the page limits permitted by the Northern District Local Rules, and it seeks to file a 22 thirty page motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 73.) Under this Court’s standing orders, with the 23 exception of motions for summary judgment, motions may not exceed 15 pages. All parties 24 are HEREBY ADVISED to familiarize themselves with the Court’s standing orders. The 25 United States also filed its motion for administrative relief the day before it states it intends to 26 file their motion. Under the Local Rules, Plaintiff has four (4) days to respond to the motion for 27 administrative relief. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). In the future, all parties are advised to seek 28 such relief well in advance of any deadline or intended filing date. However, because the Court 2 1 shall provide Plaintiff with an additional five pages for her opposition brief, the Court shall rule 2 on the motion for administrative relief at this time. The Court GRANTS IN PART the United 3 States’ request for additional pages. It may file a motion to dismiss that is no longer than 4 twenty pages. Plaintiff’s opposition brief may not exceed twenty pages. The United States’ 5 reply shall not exceed fifteen pages. 6 Finally, the Court ORDERS the United States to notice its motion to dismiss for hearing 7 on April 6, 2012. As to that motion, the briefing schedule will be governed by the Northern 8 District Civil Local Rule 7-3. If the Court finds that any of the motions are suitable for 9 disposition without oral argument, it shall notify the parties in advance of the hearing date. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: February 8, 2012 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?