Huynh v. United States Postal Service et al
Filing
42
ORDER re Briefing Schedule 40 , 41 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on November 2, 2011. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
10
PHU G. HUYNH,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
Case No. 11-cv-03195 NC
ORDER AMENDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Re: Dkt. Nos. 40, 41
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiff Phu Huynh requests that the Court change the briefing schedule for Defendants’
19
Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 40). Defendants object to the request (Dkt. No. 41). The Court
20
previously adopted Judge Wilken’s briefing schedule, which required Plaintiff to file his
21
opposition by November 15, 2011 and Defendants to file their reply by November 22, 2011
22
(Dkt. No. 39). The motion to dismiss hearing was scheduled for November 30, 2011.
23
24
25
26
27
28
On November 1, 2011, the Court referred this case to the ADR Program for mediation.
The mediation cutoff date is January 17, 2012.
For good cause showing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request and amends the briefing
schedule on the motion to dismiss as follows:
The deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposition is now January 25, 2012. Defendants’
reply shall be filed on or before February 1, 2012. The motion to dismiss will be heard on
Case No. 11-cv-03195 NC
ORDER AMENDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
1
February 8, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450
2
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
DATED: November 2, 2011
____________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-03195 NC
ORDER AMENDING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE
2
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?