Su v. Siemens Industry, Inc.

Filing 137

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO RE-NOTICE HEARING re 129 MOTION to Alter Judgment for Clarification of Order re: Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Julie Su. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 2, 2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JULIE SU,

Case No. 12-cv-03743-JST
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9
10

SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME; ORDERING
PLAINTIFF TO RE-NOTICE HEARING
Re: ECF No. 129

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time is DENIED. Neither Defendant nor

12
13

Intervenor Anderson has stipulated to the change of time, and Plaintiff has failed to identify any

14

“substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time.” Civ. L.R. 6-

15

3(a)(3).
Plaintiff is seeking to have her May 27 motion for clarification heard concurrently with her

16
17

May 20 motion for interlocutory appeal. That approach may have benefits, but it does not justify

18

shortening the time Defendant and Intervenor would have to file any responses to the newly filed

19

May 27 motion, or the time the Court would have to consider these filings. Plaintiff is free to seek

20

a stipulation, or failing that, an order, continuing the hearing date and briefing schedule on the

21

May 20 motion so that the motions can be heard concurrently. Alternatively, Plaintiff could seek

22

to have the Court’s order on the first motion for interlocutory appeal stayed until such time as the

23

Court rules on the May 27 motion.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

Unless and until the Court grants an order shortening time, all motions must be noticed for

2

hearing “not less than 35 days after service of the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). Therefore, Plaintiff

3

is ORDERED to re-notice its May 27 motion for hearing in compliance with the Local Rules.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2