Jackson v. Fenway Partners, LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER TERMINATING 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 25 Stipulation re Request for Ruling on the Papers on 6 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue. Plaintiff's Opposition due on 2/22/2013. Defendants' Reply due by 3/1/2013. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 29, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
No. C 13-00005 JSW
9

JAMES JACKSON,

12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
STIPULATION RE REQUEST
FOR RULING ON THE PAPERS
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
TRANSFER AND EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO
ANSWER OR OTHERWISE
RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
v.

FENWAY PARTNERS LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

_____________________________________/

15

FENWAY PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,

16

Third Party Plaintiffs,

(Docket Nos. 12, 25)

17
18

v.
COACH AM GROUP HOLDINGS CORP., et
al.,

19
Third Party Defendants.
20
/
21
22

The Court has received the parties stipulation relating to the pending motion to transfer.

23

The parties have requested that the Court decide the motion to transfer on the papers, because of

24

a conflict with the scheduled hearing date. The Court DENIES that request, although it will

25

consider a request to continue the hearing. If, after it has reviewed the parties’ papers, it

26

determines the matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument, it shall notify the parties

27

in advance of the hearing.

28

//

1

The Court also notes that the parties contend the opposition to the motion is due on

2

March 5, 2013, and the reply is due on March 12, 2013. The parties are not correct about the

3

filing deadlines for the opposition brief and reply brief. Plaintiff’s opposition brief was due on

4

January 23, 2013, and Defendants’ reply would be due on January 30, 2013. See N.D. Civ. L.R.

5

7-3(a), (c), 7-7. The fact that this case was reassigned and the motion rescheduled does not alter

6

that briefing schedule, absent Court Order. (See Docket No. 18.) Because Plaintiff’s brief is

7

overdue, and because the parties were in error as to the proper filing deadlines, the Court shall

8

grant the parties an extension. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion to transfer by no

9

later than February 22, 2013, and Defendant shall file a reply by March 1, 2013. If the parties
require a further extension of these deadlines, they must demonstrate good cause for any

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

proposed modifications.

12

The Court GRANTS the parties stipulated request that Defendants will have until 14

13

days following a ruling on the Motion to Transfer Venue to serve and file an answer or

14

otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint, if the Motion to Transfer Venue is denied and

15

this action remains in this District.

16

This Order terminates Docket No. 12 and Docket No. 25.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
Dated: January 29, 2013
19

JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2