Brantley et al v. Maxwell-Jolly et al

Filing 531

ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS' OCTOBER 11, 2012 LETTER. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 522 MOTION to Enforce Judgment and for Appointment of Special Master. Responses due by 10/29/2012. Replies due by 11/2/2012. Motion Hearing set for 11/8/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on October 17, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2012) Modified on 10/17/2012 (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

ESTHER DARLING, et al.,

12
13

Plaintiffs,

Case No.: 09-3798 SBA (JSC)
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ OCTOBER 11, 2012
LETTER

v.

14
15
16

TOBY DOUGLAS, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ October 11, 2012 letter, which requests a hearing

19

before November 1, 2012 on “extremely urgent” issues related to their motion for enforcement

20

of the settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 529.) Plaintiffs previously filed motions to shorten time

21

and enforce judgment on September 14 and 15, 2012, which Defendants contested. (Dkt. Nos.

22

493, 522, 525.) The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer, and Plaintiffs withdrew their

23

motion to shorten time. Plaintiffs now contend that despite their subsequent meet and confer

24

efforts a number of issues remain unresolved. Defendants challenge the representations in

25

Plaintiffs’ letter, including the urgency that Plaintiffs allege, and state that they “need at least

26

two weeks to adequately brief the issues” raised by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 530.)

27
28

After careful review of the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not
met their burden to show the “substantial harm and prejudice that would occur if the Court did

1

not change the time” for the issues Plaintiffs seek to have addressed by November 1, 2012. See

2

Civ. L.R. 6-3. The issues Plaintiffs raise are complicated and require thoughtful briefing by both

3

parties and careful consideration by the Court, which is compromised by the greatly

4

abbreviated schedule Plaintiffs seek. Moreover, these issues have been raised and disputed for

5

months, and Plaintiffs have not identified a persuasive reason as to why they were unable to file

6

their motion earlier. On the other hand, Plaintiffs’ motion for enforcement was filed on

7

September 15, 2012, so Defendants have had weeks to review and understand Plaintiffs’

8

arguments; indeed, since the filing of the motion, the parties have engaged in substantial meet

9

and confer discussions regarding Plaintiffs’ concerns.

10

Accordingly, the Court sets the following schedule for the three issues raised in Plaintiffs’

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

October 11, 2012 letter: Defendants shall file a response on or before October 29, 2012.

12

Plaintiffs shall file a reply, if any, by November 2, 2012. A hearing is scheduled for November 8,

13

2012 at 9:00 am in Courtroom F on the 15th Floor of 450 Golden Gate Avenue.

14

Plaintiffs have indicated an intent to file another motion for enforcement of the

15

settlement on additional issues and to seek a hearing on or before December 1, 2012. If

16

Plaintiffs contemplate such a motion, then it shall be filed at least 35 days before the requested

17

hearing date.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 17, 2012

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2