Do v. Hollins Law, P.C.

Filing 22

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO CLARIFY STATUS OF 20 Motion to Transfer Case. Joint Status Report due by 2:00 p.m. on May 22, 2013. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 21, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

VIEN DO,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 13-01322 JSW

v.

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES
TO CLARIFY STATUS OF
MOTION TO TRANSFER

HOLLINS LAW P.C.,
Defendant.
/

14
15

On April 25, 2013, Defendant Hollins Law, P.C. filed a motion to transfer venue for

16

May 17, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Spero. On April 11, 2013, the case was

17

reassigned to the undersigned Judge. On April 26, 2013, the Court directed Defendant to re-

18

notice the motion on open and available date on this Court’s calendar, in accordance with

19

Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-2(a). The Court expressly directed that Defendant should

20

not re-file the entire motion. Rather, Defendant was ordered to file a re-notice of the hearing

21

date. The Court also stated that the briefing schedule triggered by the filing of the motion, as

22

set forth in Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 7-3(c), would not be altered.

23

On that same date, Plaintiff moved to strike the motion to transfer, because Defendant

24

failed to notice it for a hearing date 35 days after the motion was filed. The Court denied that

25

motion on April 29, 2013.

26

On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

27

On May 8, 2013, Defendant re-filed its motion to transfer, which is directed at Plaintiff’s

28

original complaint. (See Docket No. 20, Ex. A.)

1

On May 9, 2013, Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s motion to transfer, although it is unclear

2

whether Plaintiff’s opposition pertained to Defendant’s original motion or the motion filed on

3

May 9, 2013.

4

Accordingly, the parties are HEREBY ORDERED to submit a joint status report by no

5

later than May 22, 2013 at 2:00 p.m., in which they advise the Court as to whether, in light of

6

the amended complaint, Defendant intends to maintain that this action should be transferred

7

and, if so, whether Plaintiff’s opposition brief (Docket No. 21), is directed at the motion to

8

transfer filed on May 8, 2013 or whether Plaintiff will file an opposition brief on May 22, 2013,

9

the date on which an opposition to Docket No. 21 would otherwise be due.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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