Marin Advocates for Children et al v. McQuaid et al

Filing 30

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF AND SETTING HEARING 14 MOTION to Dismiss 20 MOTION to Dismiss, 21 MOTION to Strike and 15 MOTION to Strike reset for 4/24/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/09/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
KERLINE ASTRE,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RELIEF AND SETTING HEARING

v.

9

SUSAN MCQUAID, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 27, 28, 29

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 3:18-cv-00138-WHO

12
13

Plaintiff Kerline Astre filed a motion for relief from inadvertent misfiling of her opposition

14

to defendant Susan McQuaid’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 21).1 Mot. for Relief (Dkt. No. 28). She

15

seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B), which allows the court, in its

16

discretion and for good cause, to extend time “on motion made after the time has expired if the

17

party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B); see also Civil L. R.

18

6-3. Her counsel indicates that he inadvertently filed Astre’s opposition to McQuaid’s motion to

19

dismiss in place of her opposition to McQuaid’s motion to strike, “probably, at least in significant

20

part” due to his “computer systems[.]” Witteman Decl. ¶ 2 (Dkt. No. 28-1). He discovered the

21

mistake only after reviewing McQuaid’s reply, which noted that Astre’s opposition was

22

“identical” to her opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Reply to Mot. to Strike (Dkt. No. 25).

23

Astre attached the correct opposition to Witteman Declaration submitted in support of her request.

24

See Opp’n to McQuaid Mot. to Strike (Witteman Decl., Ex. A, Dkt. NO. 28-1 at 4). McQuaid has

25

not filed an opposition.

26
27
28

1

She simultaneously filed a motion to shorten time to on the briefing and hearing schedule for her
motion for relief, based on the hearing date for the motions to dismiss and motions to strike. Dkt.
No. 29. That motion is MOOTED by this Order.

Having found good cause, the motion is GRANTED. The correct opposition attached to

1
2

the Witteman Declaration will be considered in adjudicating McQuaid’s motion to strike. If

3

McQuaid wishes to file a reply to the correct opposition, she may do so by Friday, April 13,

4

2018.

5

In addition, the parties filed a stipulation to continue the hearing date on the motions from

6

April 18 to April 25. Dkt. No. 27. The court has informed the parties that April 25 is not

7

available for hearings. The parties have agreed to hear the motions on April 24, 2018. The

8

hearings on McQuaid’s motions to dismiss and strike (Dkt. Nos. 20, 21), and Findlay’s motions to

9

dismiss and strike (Dkt. Nos. 14, 15) are set for April 24, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 9, 2018

13
14
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2