Ua Cruadhlaoich v. Bryson

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING: 21 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 15 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/5/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2012)

Case3:12-cv-02723-JSW Document21 Filed12/04/12 Page1 of 4

3

MATTHEW A. I. UA CRUADHLAOICH
3440 Redwood Court, Unit 2
Castro Valley, CA 94546
Telephone: [phone]

4

Plaintiff Pro Se

5

MELINDA L. HAAG (CSBN132612)
United States Attorney
ALEX G. TSE (CSBN 152348)
Chief, Civil Division
JUAN D. WALKER (CSBN 208008)
Assistant United States Attorney

1
2

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102-3495
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for the Federal Defendant

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17

MATTHEW A. I. UA CRUADHLAOICH,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22
23

No. C 12-2723 JSW

v.
JOINTADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S
NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

JOHN E. BRYSON, Secretary of
Commerce, of the UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, a
government entity,
Defendant.

24
25
26
27
28
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

-1-

Case3:12-cv-02723-JSW Document21 Filed12/04/12 Page2 of 4

1
2

4

JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF
TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Matthew A.I. Ua Cruadhlaoich hereby moves for an extension of 10 calendar

5

days, until December 14, 2012, for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Notice of Motion and

6

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (hereinafter “Motion to Dismiss”), which was filed on

3

7
November 20, 2012. Defendant does not oppose this administrative motion. In support, the
8
9
10

Plaintiff states as follows:
1. In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant raised various procedural and substantive issues

11

in arguing for the dismissal of each of Plaintiff’s causes of action. These issues involve detailed

12

issues of law and, moreover, the motion is a critical one, requiring Plaintiff to invest a reasonable

13

amount of time in order to adequately respond to same.

14
15

2. Plaintiff stated in his Plaintiff's Separate Case Management Statement (hereinafter

16

“Case Management Statement”) filed on Friday, November 30, 2012, that he intended to timely

17

respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff stated this in the anticipation that he would

18

be able to complete an adequate response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss over this past

19

weekend of December 1 through December 2, 2012.

20
21
22

3. Because Plaintiff is pro se, he must rely upon public resources, especially law
libraries, for most of his legal research.

23

4. Plaintiff works full-time during the week.

24

5. At the time of filing his Case Management Statement, Plaintiff, who is not an attorney

25

and does not regularly make use of legal resources, did not realize that the law libraries in his

26
27
28

area, the Bernard E. Witkin Alameda County Law Library in Hayward, California, and the
Bernard E. Witkin Alameda County Law Library in Oakland, California, are closed on the
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

-2-

Case3:12-cv-02723-JSW Document21 Filed12/04/12 Page3 of 4

1

weekends. Plaintiff realized after filing his Case Management Statement that he would not

2

practically be able complete his research this past weekend.

3

6. Plaintiff was not able to visit either of these law libraries on Monday, December 3,

4
2012, or today, Tuesday, December 4, 2012, due to his work obligations.
5
7. As the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for February 22, 2013,

6
7

and the Initial Case Management Conference in this case is scheduled for March 15, 2013, the

8

extension of time sought herein would not reasonably be expected to interfere with the overall

9

pace of progress of this case.

10
8. The parties have conferred. Defendant does not oppose the extension and has agreed
11
12
13

to jointly file this administrative motion to expedite the Court’s review and consideration of
same.

14

9. For all of the above reasons, Plaintiff herein requests an extension through Friday,

15

December 14, 2012, for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, which would

16

render the response due 24 days from the date Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss.

17
18
19

Defendant’s reply would then be due 7 days after Plaintiff files his opposition.
Dated: December 4, 2012

20

/s/____________
Matthew A. I. Ua Cruadhlaoich
Plaintiff Pro Se

21
22

MELINDA L. HAAG
United States Attorney

23
24

/s/_______
Juan D. Walker 1
Attorneys for the Federal Defendant

25
26
27
28

I, Juan D. Walker, hereby attest, in accordance with the Northern District of California’s Local Rule 5-1,
the concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory listed on this
document.

1

JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

-3-

Case3:12-cv-02723-JSW Document21 Filed12/04/12 Page4 of 4

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED. Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is due on or
before December 14, 2012. Defendant’s reply brief is due on or before December 21, 2012.

4
December 5, 2012
Date:_______________________
5
___________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER

-4-