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

Filing 74

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. No later than June 27, 2013, defendants shall file their motion to dismiss and motion to strike, and shall notice said motions for hearing on August 9, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. No later than July 18, 2013, plaintiffs shall file their oppositions to defendants' motions. No later than July 26, 2013, defendants shall file their replies. The Case Management Conference is continued from June 28, 2013 to Septemb er 27, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.; a Joint Case Management Conference shall be filed no later than September 20, 2013. To the extent defendants move for an extension of the time to answer the Third Amended Complaint, the motion is denied as premature. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 3, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12

ELDRIDGE JOHNSON, et al.,

No. C-12-2730 MMC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

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

13

/

14
15

Before the Court is defendants’ “Administrative Motion to File Motions to Dismiss

16

and Strike, to Extend Time to Answer Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, and to Continue

17

Case Management Conference,” filed May 23, 2013. Plaintiffs have filed opposition.1

18

Having read and considered the papers filed in support and in opposition to the motion, the

19

Court hereby rules as follows.

20

In their motion, defendants seek an extension of time to file a motion to dismiss the

21

Third Amended Complaint and a motion to strike, as well as a continuance of the Case

22

Management Conference, presently scheduled for June 28, 2013, and an extension of the

23

deadline to file an answer.2

24
1

25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of their opposition.
Nonetheless, the Court has considered it. For future reference, plaintiffs are reminded that,
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) and the Court’s Standing Orders, parties are required
to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically.
2

In their opposition, plaintiffs argue defendants’ motion is “procedurally defective” in
that defendants seek relief under Civil Local Rule 7-11 rather than Civil Local Rule 6-3.
(See Opp. at 2:20-22.) In response thereto, defendants have filed a “Reply” in which they
argue the motion is proper under Civil Local Rule 7-11, or, to the extent it is not, should be

1

Given the length of the Third Amended Complaint, the Court finds good cause exists

2

to extend the deadline for defendants to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.

3

Further, the Court finds there is little to be accomplished in conducting a Case

4

Management Conference prior to resolution of the motion to dismiss, and, consequently,

5

will continue the Case Management Conference.3

6
7
8
9
10
11

Accordingly, to the extent the motion seeks such extension and continuance, the
motion is hereby GRANTED and the Court hereby SETS the following schedule:
1. No later than June 27, 2013, defendants shall file their motion to dismiss and
motion to strike, and shall notice said motions for hearing on August 9, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
2. No later than July 18, 2013, plaintiffs shall file their oppositions to defendants’
motions.

12

3. No later than July 26, 2013, defendants shall file their replies.

13

4. The Case Management Conference is continued from June 28, 2013 to

14

September 27, 2013, at 10:30 a.m.; a Joint Case Management Conference shall be filed no

15

later than September 20, 2013.

16
17
18

To the extent defendants move for an extension of the time to answer the Third
Amended Complaint, the motion is hereby DENIED as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: June 3, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

deemed as having been brought under Civil Local Rule 6-3. Plaintiffs move to strike the
reply as unauthorized. Because neither Civil Local Rule 6-3 nor 7-11 provides for the filing
of a reply, plaintiffs’ motion to strike the reply is hereby GRANTED. The Court, however,
does not find the motion procedurally barred and, as discussed, infra, has addressed the
matter on its merits.
3

Plaintiffs’ argue the Case Management Conference should go forward as scheduled
because the initial complaint was filed approximately one year ago. The Court is not
persuaded, any such delay having been occasioned by plaintiffs’ efforts, unsuccessful to
date, to allege in a single action a large number of individual claims on behalf of twentythree separate parties.
2