Johnson et al v. United Continental Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 119

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFERRED PORTION OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS, TO ENLARGE TIME, AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. To the extent defendants seek, as to their severance motion and the op position thereto, an order increasing the page limitations from twenty-five to thirty-five pages, the motion is granted. To the extent defendants seek, as to their severance motion, an enlargement of the briefing schedule as jointly proposed at the c ase management conference, the motion is granted. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED; as to the venue motion, the denial is without prejudice to refiling after the severance motion has been determined. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 11, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

ELDRIDGE JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

No. C-12-2730 MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFERRED
PORTION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS, TO
ENLARGE TIME, AND TO CONTINUE
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

v.
UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17
18

Before the Court is defendants’ “Administrative Motion to Exceed Page Limits, to

19

Enlarge Time, and to Continue August 8, 2014 Case Management Conference and

20

Related Deadlines,” filed July 2, 2014, by which defendants seek (1) as to their anticipated

21

motion to sever and motion to dismiss/transfer based on improper venue, as well as for

22

plaintiffs’ oppositions thereto, an order increasing the page limitations from twenty-five to

23

thirty-five pages; (2) as to the replies, an order increasing the page limitations from fifteen

24

to twenty-five pages; and (3) as to each such motion, an order enlarging the briefing

25

schedules.1

26

Having considered the papers filed in connection with defendants’ administrative

27
1

28

By order filed July 9, 2014, the Court denied the motion to the extent it sought a
continuance of the case management conference, and deferred ruling on the remaining
issues pending further discussion at said conference.

1

motion, and having addressed the matter further at the case management conference

2

conducted August 8, 2014, the Court finds good cause has been shown for the requested

3

increase in the page limitations applicable to the motion to sever and opposition thereto,

4

and for an enlargement of the briefing schedule for said motion.

5
6
7

Accordingly, defendants’ administrative motion is hereby GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:
1. To the extent defendants seek, as to their severance motion and the opposition

8

thereto, an order increasing the page limitations from twenty-five to thirty-five pages, the

9

motion is GRANTED.

10

2. To the extent defendants seek, as to their severance motion, an enlargement of

11

the briefing schedule as jointly proposed at the case management conference, the motion

12

is GRANTED.

13
14
15

3. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED; as to the venue motion, the denial is
without prejudice to refiling after the severance motion has been determined.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: August 11, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

At the time they filed their administrative motion, defendants anticipated filing the
severance motion and venue motion simultaneously. At the case management conference,
the parties and the Court agreed that the motions should be filed and heard sequentially.
2