Saleh v. Bush et al
Filing
52
ORDER VACATING MOTION HEARING re 43 MOTION to Dismiss filed by The United States; 38 MOTION for Hearing pursuant to Osborn v. Haley in support of Second Amended Complaint filed by Sundus Shaker Saleh. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 3, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SUNDUS SHAKER SALEH,
Case No. 13-cv-01124-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER VACATING MOTION
HEARING
9
10
GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,
Re: ECF Nos. 38, 43.
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Osborn Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing in Support of her
13
Second Amended Complaint and the Motion to Dismiss filed by the United States. ECF Nos. 38,
14
43. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds
15
that the matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearing on this matter,
16
currently scheduled for November 13, 2014, is hereby VACATED.
17
However, if any party advises the Court in writing by no later than two days from the date
18
of this Order that most or all of the argument for its side will be conducted by a lawyer who has
19
been licensed to practice law for four or fewer years, and who has not previously presented
20
argument before this Court, then the Court will reschedule the hearing at a time that is convenient
21
to all parties in order to provide that opportunity. Counsel shall confer with each other, and the
22
party requesting the rescheduling of the hearing shall identify the upcoming available dates on the
23
Court’s calendar at which all counsel are available for the hearing.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 3, 2014
______________________________________
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?