Gary Martinovsky, et al v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 22

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST AS MOTION TO CHANGE TIME PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3; DENYING REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Request is denied, without prejudice to defendants' filing a motion to change time in compliance with the applicable local rules. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 7, 2016. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY MARTINOVSKY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-00403-MMC

v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANTS'
REQUEST AS MOTION TO CHANGE
TIME PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL
RULE 6-3; DENYING REQUEST
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 20

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

The Court is in receipt of defendants’ “Request for Continuance of Case
Management Conference Pending Hearing of Dispositive Motion” (hereinafter,
“Request”), filed April 7, 2016, which Request the Court hereby construes as a motion to
change time. See Civil L.R. 6-1 (providing “A Court order is required for any enlargement
or shortening of time that alters an event or deadline already fixed by Court order”). Said
request is not, however, in compliance with this district’s local rules governing such
motions. See Civil L.R. 6-3(a) (setting forth requirements for motion to change time).
Accordingly, the Request is hereby DENIED, without prejudice to defendants’ filing a
motion to change time in compliance with the applicable local rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge