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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?