Harrison et al v. DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER RE 18 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF. The Court will construe the administrative motion as a motion to shorten time so that the Court rules on Defendant's stay application prior to May 14, 2014. The Court will then construe Plaintif fs' response to the motion to stay, if one is filed on or before April 14, 2014, as a response to the administrative motion as well, and will then address both motions. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/10/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CHRISTOPHER J HARRISON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DNC PARKS & RESORTS AT
YOSEMITE, INC., et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-00451-WHO
ORDER RE MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 18

Defendants.
On March 31, 2014, defendant United States filed a motion asking the Court to stay all

13

proceedings in this case pending the determination of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

14

on defendant’s motion to transfer this and related cases to the Eastern District of California.

15

Docket No. 16. Defendant noticed its motion to stay for hearing on May 14, 2014, and did not file

16

an administrative motion seeking to shorten the time for the hearing or determination of its

17

motion. Defendant’s motion to stay is not unopposed and the opposition or response of plaintiffs

18

is not due until April 14, 2014.

19

The Court – by a Clerk’s Notice (not an Order) filed on April 4, 2014 – continued the Case

20

Management Conference date to June 17, 2014, in order to conserve the resources of the Court and

21

counsel prior to the determination of the motion to stay.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant then filed a motion for administrative relief in connection with its prior motion
to stay, which seeks to clarify the Clerk’s Notice. The Court will construe the administrative
motion as a motion to shorten time so that the Court rules on Defendant’s stay application prior to
May 14, 2014. The Court will then construe Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to stay, if one is
filed on or before April 14, 2014, as a response to the administrative motion as well, and will then
address both motions.
For future reference, the Court observes that while it may well be appropriate to grant a

1

stay of proceedings pending the decision of JPML, due process requires that the Plaintiffs have an

2

opportunity to be heard. The motion filed on March 31, 2014, unaccompanied by a request to

3

shorten time and briefing schedule, did not allow that to happen within the time frame it now

4

appears that Defendant desired.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: April 10, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2