Duarte et al v. Mayorkas et al

Filing 60

ORDER CLARIFYING AND AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/26/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 8 9 JOSE DUARTE, and YOLANDA ASPARREN, No. C 12-03647 RS Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 ORDER CLARIFYING AND AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE v. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, in his official capacity, and the UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Defendants. ____________________________________/ Plaintiffs Jose Duarte and Yolanda Asparren requested an extension of their deadline to 19 respond to defendants’ motion to dismiss their claims on October 12, 2012, the very date that brief 20 was due. Plaintiffs wanted the date of their opposition moved from October 12, 2012 to October 19, 21 2012. On October 17, 2012, the request was granted and the defendants’ deadline for their reply 22 brief was also moved to November 1, 2012, and the hearing was moved to November 8, 2012. On 23 October 17, 2012, the defendants filed an unopposed request that the hearing date be further moved 24 from November 8, 2012 to November 15, 2012. (Docket #55). Docket entry number 55 related to 25 the briefing schedule on defendants’ request to change the hearing date—not the briefing schedule 26 on the motion to dismiss. Docket entry number 55 indicated that if an opposition to the request to 27 change the hearing date was to be filed, it would be due November 2, 2012. Docket entry number 28 NO. C 12-03647 RS ORDER CLARIFYING AND AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 1 55 did not change the deadline for plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss their 2 claims. 3 Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss remained due on October 19, 2012. 4 Plaintiffs, apparently proceeding under the mistaken belief that the deadline for their opposition to 5 defendants’ motion to dismiss had been moved to November 2, 2012, failed to file that brief on time 6 on October 19, 2012. On October 25, 2012, they filed an “Objection and Request for Clarification” 7 requesting clarification of the deadline for their opposition to the motion to dismiss. On October 26, 8 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. 9 Because plaintiffs missed the October 19, 2012, deadline for their opposition to defendants’ For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 motion to dismiss, but have already filed it, the deadline is hereby moved to October 26, 2012. 11 Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to dismiss will be accepted as timely filed. Defendants’ 12 deadline for their reply brief is hereby moved to November 9, 2012. As previously ordered, the 13 hearing on the motion to dismiss will be held on November 15, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom 3 of 14 the above-captioned court. 15 Plaintiffs should note that once deadlines are set by the Court, they can only be changed by 16 an order. A docket entry alone will not change them. Recognizing that plaintiffs are representing 17 themselves and are unfamiliar with the Court’s electronic docketing system, they are advised to call 18 the court if they have any questions about the docket. They should do so in a timely manner to 19 avoid missing any future deadlines. Additional extensions of time will only be granted on a 20 showing of good cause. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: 10/26/12 RICHARD SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 NO. C 12-03647 RS ORDER CLARIFYING AND AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 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?