Banga v. Equifax Information Services LLC

Filing 20

ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO REMAND re 6 Response (construed as Motion to Remand). By September 15, 2014, defendant must provide plaintiff a copy of the declaration by Kathryn J. Harris attached to d efendant's 14 opposition. If plaintiff wishes to do so, she may file a supplemental reply by September 22, 2014. A hearing on the motion to remand is set for October 1, 2014, at 2:00 pm in Courtroom No. 2, 17th floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, S an Francisco, California. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/12/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jmdS, COURT STAFF) Modified on 9/12/2014 to correct dates indicated as 2013 in the docket entry and to attach # 2 Corrected Order. Only the corrected order will be mailed to the pro se party; the main document image should be disregarded.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

KAMLESH BANGA,

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES
LLC,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03038-WHO
ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE
AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO REMAND
Re: Dkt. No. 6

12

Currently before the Court are plaintiff’s motion to remand, defendant’s opposition to the

13

motion, and plaintiff’s reply.1 Dkt. Nos. 6, 14, 15, 17. Having considered the parties’ filings, IT

14

IS HEREBY ORDERED:

15

By September 15, 2013, defendant must provide plaintiff a copy of the declaration by

16

Kathryn J. Harris attached to defendant’s opposition. See Dkt. No. 14. If plaintiff wishes to do so,

17

she may file a supplemental reply, of no more than five pages in length, by September 22, 2013.

18

A hearing on the motion to remand is set for October 1, 2014, at 2:00 pm in Courtroom No. 2,

19

17th floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 12, 2014

22

______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Although plaintiff styled her motion to remand as an opposition to defendant’s notice of
removal, Judge Cousins, who previously presided over this case, decided to treat plaintiff’s filing
as a motion to remand. See Dkt. No. 7. I will do the same.