March v. Twin Cities Police Authority et al

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF 13 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/23/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/23/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 GLEN MARCH, No. C 14-00512 SI 7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 v. TWIN CITIES POLICE AUTHORITY, et. al., Defendants. / On April 10 and 14, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss and motions to strike plaintiff’s 13 complaint. Docket Nos. 9-11. A hearing on the motions in currently scheduled for Friday, June 27, 14 2014 at 9:00 a.m. By the present motion, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, moves for a 29-day 15 extension of time to file his response to defendants’ motions. Docket No. 13. For good cause shown, 16 the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time. Plaintiff’s oppositions are due by May 17 23, 2014. Defendants’ replies are due by May 30, 2014. 18 In his motion, plaintiff also requests a continuance of the June 27, 2014 hearing. Docket No. 19 13. However, plaintiff does not state that he has a conflict with the current hearing date, and under the 20 current schedule, the briefing on the motions is due well in advance of the June 27, 2014 hearing. 21 Accordingly, at this time, the Court declines to continue the hearing date. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: April 23, 2014 26 27 28 SUSAN ILLSTON 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?