Moralez v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER ON CONTINUANCE, re: Motion at 30 and objection at 31 . Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on August 17, 2015. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

) Case No. 3:14-cv-5022 SC
)
) ORDER ON CONTINUANCE OF
Plaintiff,
) MOTION TO DISMISS
)
v.
)
)
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA,
)
INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
This Order Relates To:
)
)
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE RELATING TO )
)
MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
)
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
)
FRANCISCA MORALEZ,

18
19
20

The Court now turns to a Request for Continuance of Motion to

21

Dismiss, filed by Plaintiff on August 1, 2015, ECF No. 30.

22

timely objection thereto was filed on August 3, 2015, ECF No 31.

23

A

The Court, having been otherwise engaged, failed to notify

24

Plaintiff of its displeasure prior to the August 4, 2015 date on

25

which Plaintiff's motion was originally -- and technically is still

26

-- due.

27

Plaintiff's request in a manner meant to recognize that the

28

Defendant should not be forced to suffer further delay.

Therefore, the Court planned to partially accommodate

However,

1

since that time, Counsel have filed a Reply, Response, and

2

Supplemental Reply, thus obviating the need for an expedited

3

briefing schedule.

4

ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34.

Counsel for Plaintiff is reminded that Counsel has committed

5

to the Court and may need to decline other cases -- criminal or

6

civil -- based on this previous commitment.

7

Defense filed a one-page Reply, dated August 7, 2015, which has

8

become a purely extra expense to Defendant caused by Plaintiff's

9

Counsel's failure to comply with the rules.

As matters stand, the

Counsel for Plaintiff

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

is therefore ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 7 days of

11

the date of this order why it should not be sanctioned and/or

12

required to pay the attorneys' fees connected directly with

13

Defendant's extra expense.

14

prejudice seems to unfairly prejudice the Plaintiff (vice

15

Plaintiff's Counsel).

16

dismiss or (if so construed) strike the opposition or underlying

17

SAC as time-barred are denied.

18

future violations of the Civil Local Rules or Federal Rules of

19

Civil Procedure without prior leave of the Court will result in

20

further action from the Court.

21

However, dismissal of the case with

Accordingly, requests by Defendant to

Failure to meet future deadlines or

The Court GRANTS IN PART, DENIES IN PART the motion for

22

continuance, and OVERRULES the objection.

In so doing, the Court

23

hereby retroactively grants permission to Plaintiff to file not

24

later than August 9, 2015, the date on which an opposition was

25

entered.

26

to the Plaintiff's arguments.

27

Defendant desires to revise and refile its Reply, it is GRANTED

Defendant appears to have had an opportunity to respond
But if in light of this order

28

2

1

LEAVE to do so within 3 days of the date of this order.

2

permission should not be taken as a requirement.

3

This

Upon initial review, the contents of this motion are likely

4

appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil

5

Local Rule 7-1(b).

6

determination for August 25, 2015, to allow for review of any

7

updated Reply and the response to the ORDER to SHOW CAUSE.

Even so, the Court reserves its formal

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: August 17, 2015

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3