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)

Download PDF
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

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?