Johnson v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 25

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 24 Ex Parte Application FOR EXPEDITED HEARING OF MOTION TO STAY. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SCOTT JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

8

STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

v.

9
10

Case No.17-cv-06836-JSC

12
13

Defendant has filed a motion to stay proceedings in this ADA access lawsuit pending

14

action from the Multi-District Litigation Panel. (Dkt. No. 22.) In connection with that motion,

15

filed Friday, April 27, 2018, Defendant filed what it styled as an ex parte application for an

16

expedited hearing on the motion to stay. It asks that Plaintiff be required to file an opposition on

17

Monday, April 30, 2018 and that the Court hear the motion on May 1, 2018, but in another place

18

in its motion asks that it be heard on May 2, 2018. (Dkt. No. 24 at 7.) The motion also

19

inconsistently states that Defendant will waive its reply (Dkt. No. 24 at 1) and that it will file its

20

reply by May 1, 2018. (Dkt. No. 24 at 7.) Defendant needs to take more care before it files

21

pleadings with the Court and demands that its opponent work over the weekend to serve a

22

response.

23

In any event, the ex parte motion is denied for failure to comply with the Local Rules

24

governing the shortening of time. A motion to shorten time must comply with Northern District

25

Local Rule 6-3. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-2(b). That rule sets forth various conditions that the

26

party seeking to shorten time must satisfy. Defendant’s motion satisfies none of them. Defendant

27

does not explain why the motion must be heard by May 2, 2018. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(1).

28

That a motion has been filed in the MDL does not explain why the motion to stay this action must

1

be heard by May 2. Defendant did not attempt to obtain a stipulation to hear the motion on

2

shortened time. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(2). Instead, Defendant left a message that it was filing

3

a motion to stay and made no effort to come to an agreement on when the motion could be heard.

4

Defendant did not identify any reason it would be harmed if the motion were heard on the 35-day

5

noticed motion schedule as opposed to some other time, let alone identify why it has to be heard

6

by May 2 (or May 1). N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(3). And Defendant did not comply with Civil

7

Local Rule 37-1(a). N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(4). Defendant also does not explain why the four

8

days normally accorded a party to respond to a motion to shorten time, N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-3(b),

9

should not apply.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 19, 21 and 24.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: April 30, 2018

14
15
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2