Linder v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District et al

Filing 30

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying 22 motion to shorten time; setting briefing schedule and hearing dates for 9 motion to dismiss and 21 motion for leave to file untimely opposition to motion to dismiss. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

PAUL LINDER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY &
)
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, a Special )
District; LISA LOCATI individually )
and as Bridge Captain of the
)
District, and DOES 1 to 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-CV-03861 SC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME

19
20

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Paul Linder's administrative

21

motion for an order to shorten time for hearing and briefing.

22

No. 22 ("Mot.").

23

Transportation District and Lisa Locati ("Defendants") oppose.

24

No. 23 ("Opp'n").

25

ECF

Defendants Golden Gate Bridge, Highway &
ECF

The motion is DENIED.

These motions arise out of Plaintiff's parallel motion for

26

leave to file an untimely opposition to Defendants' motion to

27

dismiss.

28

states he failed to calendar the correct opposition date after this

ECF No. 21 ("Mot. for Leave").

In that motion, Plaintiff

1

matter was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Westmore to the

2

undersigned, and accordingly missed the deadline to oppose the

3

motion.

4

moved for leave to file an untimely opposition to Defendants'

5

motion to dismiss, arguing that his neglect in failing meet the

6

applicable deadline was excusable.

7

Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).

Plaintiff has

See Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v.

Now, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, Plaintiff seeks to

8
9

ECF Nos. 15 ("Reassignment"); 16 ("MTD").

shorten the time for hearing and briefing that motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order setting the deadline for

11

Defendants to oppose the motion for November 17, 2014, with a

12

hearing to come on Friday, November 21, 2014.

13

believes this is necessary because "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

14

Plaintiff's Complaint is currently noticed for hearing December 4,

15

2014, eight days prior" to the first available date for hearing

16

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an untimely opposition.

17

at 3.

Plaintiff apparently

Mot.

18

First, Plaintiff's counsel is clearly still confused about

19

what dates govern this action, and would be wise to revisit the

20

order reassigning the case to the undersigned as well as the Civil

21

Local Rules.

22

clerk's notice state "[a]ll dates presently scheduled are vacated

23

and motions should be renoticed for hearing before the judge to

24

whom the case has been reassigned."

25

added); see also ECF No. 14 ("Clerk's Notice") ("ALL HEARING DATES

26

PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED

27

. . . .") (emphasis in original).

As both the reassignment order and the associated

Reassignment at 1 (emphasis

Defendants' counsel complied

28

2

1

with this order, and renoticed the hearing on the motion to dismiss

2

for Friday, December 5, 2014.

3

ECF No. 16 ("Renotice").

Second, on the merits of Plaintiff's motion to shorten time,

4

Defendants are right.

5

time is procedurally improper.

6

filing of administrative motions seeking only relief "not otherwise

7

governed by a . . . local rule . . . ."

8

forth the applicable standard for "[a] motion to enlarge or shorten

9

time . . . ."

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

Specifically, Plaintiff's motion to shorten

Civ. L.R. 6-3.

Civil Local Rule 7-11 permits the

Civil Local Rule 6-3 sets

Because, Plaintiff's motion does not

comply with the Local Rules it is DENIED.
To avoid future confusion, the Court will set a specific

12

briefing and hearing schedule for these motions.

13

Court expresses no opinion on Plaintiff's motion for leave to file

14

an untimely opposition brief, and may, depending on the merits of

15

that motion, treat the motion to dismiss as unopposed.

16

Nonetheless, to facilitate the orderly resolution of these matters,

17

the Court hereby ORDERS that the briefing and hearing of these

18

motions shall be governed by the following schedule:

19





No later than Wednesday December 3, 2014, Defendants shall
file any reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

22
23

No later than Wednesday, November 26, 2014, Plaintiff shall
file his opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss.

20
21

In doing so, the



The briefing of the motion for leave to file an untimely

24

opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss shall be

25

governed by the schedule noticed with the motion, ECF No.

26

21.

27

2014, Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of the

28

motion.

Accordingly, no later than Wednesday, November 26,

3

1



Hearings on both Defendants' motion to dismiss and

2

Plaintiff's motion to file an untimely opposition to the

3

motion to dismiss shall be set for Friday, December 12,

4

2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, 450 Golden

5

Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: November 20, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

4