Saechao v. Landry's, Inc., et al

Filing 77

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND SHORTENING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING by Hon. William Alsup granting 76 Motion to Shorten Time.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

MOUANG SAECHO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

12

LANDRY’S INC, a Delaware corporation,
and McCORMICK & SCHMICK
RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware
corporation,

13

Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 15-00815 WHA

/

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST
TO EXTEND BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND SHORTENING
TIME FOR PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO
CONTINUE HEARING

14
Defendant McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp. has filed a motion for

15
16

administrative relief seeking to extend the deadlines for its opposition and plaintiff’s reply by

17

one week, because the witnesses from whom it intends to submit declarations are attending a

18

conference that began on February 8. McCormick & Schmick knew of this potential conflict

19

when the Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file her class

20

certification motion in November, yet waited until February 8 to request the extension. There is

21

no good cause to adjust the briefing schedule, so that request is DENIED.
McCormick & Schmick also seeks to continue the hearing, which the Court continued to

22
23

March 10, because lead counsel will be unavailable. Plaintiff shall please respond to

24

McCormick & Schmick’s request to continue the hearing by FEBRUARY 10 AT NOON. For now,

25

the hearing remains on calendar for MARCH 10.

26
IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28
Dated:

February 9, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE