Garvey v. Kmart Corporation

Filing 372

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE re #371 Letter filed by Collette Delbridge. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 19, 2013. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

12
13
14

No. C 11-02575 WHA

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

COLLETTE DELBRIDGE, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR CONTINUANCE

v.
KMART CORPORATION,
Defendant.
/

15
16
17
18

The Court has read the June 18 letter from plaintiff’s counsel. A letter is not a proper
motion, nor is it supported by any sworn declaration.
As for Kmart, the witnesses are under a court order to appear and Kmart shall ensure that

19

they are available on the dates scheduled. The vague statement in paragraph four of the letter is

20

insufficient to warrant a continuance.

21

As for plaintiff’s counsel, there is no reason why at least one of her counsel cannot be

22

available to cross-examine witnesses at the currently-scheduled hearing. Regarding Mr.

23

Matthew Righetti, the June 18 letter does not state that the family vacation was pre-paid prior to

24

the June 14 order setting the Rule 60 evidentiary hearing date, nor was the scheduling issue

25

raised at the June 6 motion hearing. Regarding Mr. Michael Righetti, the letter does not

26

establish that significant expense would be required to modify his plans, nor was this scheduling

27

issue raised at the June 6 hearing. Please remember that one continuance on this has already

28

been granted to plaintiff’s counsel to accommodate Mr. McInerney.

1
2

In addition, the alternate dates proposed by the parties cannot be accommodated into the
Court’s schedule.

3

On a proper, joint motion made soon and supported by sworn declarations, the Court

4

would consider the alternate dates of July 29–31. Until, if ever, the Court moves the hearing

5

dates, however, the Rule 60 evidentiary hearing remains scheduled for July 2–3 — on pain of

6

denial of the Rule 60 motion.

7
8

Please do not send correspondence to the Court on important issues like this in letter
format. The letter motion is DENIED.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: June 19, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2