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)

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