Miller et al v. Carrington Mortgage Services et al

Filing 93

ORDER Granting 90 92 Plaintiffs' Request for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs to file Opposition Briefs by 1/10/2013. Defendants to file Reply briefs by 1/17/2013. Hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 88 and Motion to Strike 89 set for 1/24/2013 01:30 PM has been CONTINUED 1/31/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/12/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

RONALD BROOKS MILLER, et al.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-2282 EMC

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES,
et al.,

(Docket No. 90)

12
Defendants.
13
___________________________________/
14
15
16

At the case management conference of September 14, 2012, the Court instructed Defendants

17

to file a response to Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint thirty (30) days after mediation was

18

completed. See Docket No. 75 (civil minutes). On November 9, 2012, the mediator certified that

19

the case did not settle after mediation. See Docket No. 87 (certification of ADR session).

20

Defendants then timely filed their response to Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint. That response

21

consisted of a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. See Docket Nos. 88-89 (motions).

22

Defendants set the motions for hearing on January 24, 2013.

23

In response, Plaintiffs promptly filed a request for an extension. In their papers, Plaintiffs

24

argue, in effect, that they should be given more time to file their opposition briefs because

25

Defendants managed to get more time to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint by convincing the Court to

26

delay a response until after mediation was held. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did not intend to

27

and did not in fact engage in mediation in good faith and that Defendant simply used mediation as a

28

tactic to get more time to respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint.

1

The Court sees little merit in Plaintiffs’ position. Plaintiffs’ position is entirely speculative.

2

However, because Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, the Court shall grant their request for an

3

extension of time. Plaintiffs shall have until January 10, 2013, to file their opposition briefs.

4

Defendants shall then have until January 17, 2013, to file their reply briefs. The hearing on

5

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike shall be continued from January 24, 2013, to

6

January 31, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

7

Finally, the Court advises Plaintiffs that they should make sure that they have in their

8

possession the most current version of the Civil Local Rules, which is available on the District

9

Court’s website. Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) provides that, as a general matter, an “opposition brief
must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.” Civ. L.R. 7-3(a)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(emphasis added). The reply brief, in turn, “must be filed and served not more than 7 days after the

12

opposition was due.” Civ. L.R. 7-3(c). There is no rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in

13

the Civil Local Rules that provides that an opposition brief is due fourteen days prior to a hearing.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: December 12, 2012

18
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2