Chartis Specialty Insurance Company v. Telegraph Hill Properties, Inc. et al

Filing 41

SCHEDULING ORDER. Further Case Management Conference set for 6/6/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/24/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, No. C 11-05696 RS 12 Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 TELEGRAPH HILL PROPERTIES, INC. and W.B. COYLE, Defendants. ____________________________________/ CHARTIS SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, No. C 12-02935 RS 19 Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 THP-SF, INC. and DOES 1-30, 22 23 Defendants. 24 ____________________________________/ 25 26 27 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff Chartis Specialty Insurance Company’s motion, styled as an “unopposed motion for order to change times (setting briefing schedule for dispositive motions and adjusting pre-trial calendar).” The motion is construed as a motion requesting an extension of 28 NOS. C 11-05696 & 12-02935 RS ORDER 1 the current deadline for filing dispositive motions in the two above-captioned cases. The request is 2 granted; dispositive motions must be noticed for hearing no later than Thursday, April 25, 2013. 3 The further case management conference scheduled for March 28, 2013, is continued to June 6, 4 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom three of the above-captioned court. discovery must be completed by March 8, 2013.” The existing case management scheduling order 7 in these cases, dated August 9, 2012, set the close of non-expert discovery on November 30, 2012. 8 Non-expert discovery has been closed for nearly two months. No good cause has been shown in 9 Plaintiff’s motion as to why non-expert discovery should re-open. The request is therefore denied. 10 For the Northern District of California The proposed order submitted with the motion contains the language “[n]on-expert 6 United States District Court 5 See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4). The request for a deadline for the filing of pre-trial motions is also 11 denied as premature. 12 In addition, plaintiff’s earlier-filed “motion to consolidate cases and set briefing schedule” is 13 terminated as improperly noticed. Should plaintiff chose to bring a new motion to consolidate these 14 cases, it must do so in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 Dated: 1/24/13 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOS. C 11-05696 & 12-02935 ORDER 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?