Reno Flying Service Inc et al v. Piper Aircraft, Inc. et al

Filing 25

ORDER GRANTING 24 MOTION for Extension of Time. Plainitffs' response to defendant's motion for summary judgment 22 due by 5/22/2014. Reply due 5/29/2014. Hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment 22 continued to 6/18/2014 01:00 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 4/23/2014. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12 RENO FLYING SERVICES, INC., and
13

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No. 13-cv-04346 NC

AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC.,

v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
RULE 56(d) REQUEST TO
POSTPONE DEFENDANT’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING
DATE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

PIPER AIRCRAFT, INC., COLUMBIA

16 AIR SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1-50,
17

Inclusive,

Re: Dkt. No. 24
Defendants.

18

19 PIPER AIRCRAFT, INC.,
20
21

Cross-Complainant,
v.

22 RENO FLYING SERVICES, INC.,
AMERICAN MEDFLIGHT, INC., and

23 ROES 1-50, Inclusive,
24

Cross-Defendants.

25
26
27
28

On April 18, 2014, plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) for
an order postponing the hearing on defendant Piper Aircraft’s pending motion for summary
judgment and extending by 30 days plaintiffs’ deadline to file an opposition to that motion.
Case No. 13-cv-04346 NC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
RULE 56(d) REQUEST

tiffs
t
tension is n
necessary to allow them to conduc
o
m
ct
1 Dkt. No. 24. Plaint assert that this ext
d
a
gate
cumstances surroundin an Express Limited
ng
2 limited discovery and investig the circ
ty
nly
ded
ntiffs and is a substantial basis for
r
3 Warrant which on recently was provid to plain
nt’s
ary
nt
4 defendan summa judgmen motion. Id.

5

Having receiv no opposition to th request from defen
ved
his
ndant, the C
Court GRAN
NTS

fs’
u
llows:
6 plaintiff request under Rule 56(d) as fol

7

Th hearing on defendan motion for summa judgmen currently set for Ma 21,
he
o
nts’
n
ary
nt
y
ay

t
2
00
8 2014 is continued to June 18, 2014 at 1:0 p.m.

9

Th new dead
he
dline for plaintiffs to file a respon to the m
f
nse
motion for su
ummary

nt
2,
y
may
ct
y
10 judgmen is May 22 2014. By that date, plaintiffs m conduc discovery limited to the
0
o
ted
nty
Rule
motion.
11 subject of the Limit Warran identified in their R 56(d) m
1

12
2

Th new dead
he
dline for de
efendant to file a reply is May 29, 2014.
,

13
3

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

14
4

Date: April 23, 2014
2

____
__________
__________
_____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

15
5
16
6
17
7
18
8
19
9
20
0
21
1
22
2
23
3
24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 13-cv-0434 NC
46
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTI
R
IFFS’
RULE 56(d) REQUE
EST

2