Cohens v. Alameda County Sheriff Department

Filing 15

ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING re 12 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's 1st Amended Complaint or in the alternative motion for more definite statement filed by Alameda County Sheriff Department, 13 MOTION to Strike EXEMPLARY DAMAGES CLAIM filed by Alameda County Sheriff Department. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 8, 2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDWIN J. COHENS, Case No. 13-cv-00303-JST Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Re: Dkt. Nos. 12 & 13 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING 12 13 Before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint and 14 to strike Plaintiff's exemplary damages claim. Dkt. No. 12 & 13. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 15 Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that the parties’ briefs have 16 thoroughly addressed the issues, rendering the matter suitable for disposition without oral 17 argument. The hearing on this matter, currently scheduled for April 18, 2013, is hereby 18 VACATED. 19 However, if any party advises the Court in writing by no later than three days from the date 20 of this Order that most or all of the argument for its side will be conducted by a lawyer who has 21 been licensed to practice law for four or fewer years, the Court will reschedule the hearing at a 22 time that is convenient to all parties in order to provide that opportunity. Any such notice should 23 reflect the date or dates on which the parties are available for the hearing. 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 8, 2013 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

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?