Wells et al v. The Regents of the University of California et al

Filing 10

ORDER Re: Briefing Schedule for 5 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Judge Thelton E. Henderson. Opposition now due 05/22/15; Reply due 05/29/15. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LORRAINE WELLS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7
8

v.

Case No. 15-cv-01700-TEH
ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

Defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on April 22,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2015. (Docket No. 5). The motion set an incorrect briefing schedule, with Plaintiffs’

12

response due on May 13, 2015, and Defendants’ reply due on May 18, 2015. The Court’s

13

Clerk immediately issued a Clerk’s Notice setting the correct response and reply deadlines.

14

(Docket No. 7). As explained in the Clerk’s Notice, Civil Local Rule 7-3 provides that the

15

response deadline was May 6, 2015, and the reply deadline was May 13, 2015. No filings

16

were made by these dates. Instead, the Parties submitted a stipulation on May 13, 2015,

17

requesting that the hearing be continued until June 15, 2015. (Docket No. 8). The Court

18

granted this request. (Docket No. 9). However, the Court’s Order on the stipulation did

19

not change the briefing schedule. As a result, Plaintiffs’ response is now thirteen days late,

20

and Defendants’ reply is six days late.

21

It appears that the Parties are under the impression that the briefing schedule is

22

determined by the hearing date, rather than the motion’s filing date. This is incorrect. As

23

provided in Civil Local Rule 7-3, the opposition is due “not more than 14 days after the

24

motion was filed.” Civil L.R. 7-3(a). The reply is then due “not more than 7 days after the

25

opposition was due.” Civil L.R. 7-3(c). This is the rule that will be strictly applied to all

26

future motions absent an approved revision to the briefing schedule.

27
28

As all Parties have now missed their filing deadlines, the Court must set a new
briefing schedule for this motion. Plaintiffs’ opposition shall be filed on or before May

1

22, 2015. Defendants’ reply shall be filed on or before May 29, 2015. The Parties’ failure

2

to adhere to these deadlines, in light of their failure to adhere to the deadlines provided in

3

the Local Rules and set by the Clerk’s Notice a month ago, will be met with consequences

4

as determined by the Court.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: 05/19/5

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

2