Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al
ORDER VACATING JUNE 15, 2021 HEARING by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman and denying as moot 1478 Motion to Vacate. Having reviewed the papers attending the second extension motion, pursuant to Civil Local R. 7-1(b) and General Order 72-6, the undersigned finds that the second extension motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument. (rmilc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2021)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TODD ASHKER, et al.,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 09-cv-05796-CW (RMI)
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO VACATE JUNE 15, 2021 HEARING
MATHEW CATE, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 1478
Now pending before the court is Plaintiffs’ second motion to extend the settlement
agreement in this case (see dkts. 1357, 1411), Defendants have responded (dkt. 1418), and
Plaintiffs have filed a reply (dkt. 1448) to which Defendants have lodged an objection (dkt. 1455)
that remains pending. The extension matter is currently scheduled for oral argument on June 15,
2021, and Defendants have moved (dkt. 1478) to vacate the oral argument from the court’s
calendar due to the pendency of their motion (dkt. 1457) to stay litigation in this court relating to
the second extension motion until after the resolution of their appeal from the entry of the first
extension order (dkt. 1440). Plaintiffs have filed a response (dkt. 1482) in opposition. Having
reviewed the papers attending the second extension motion, pursuant to Civil Local R. 7-1(b) and
General Order 72-6, the undersigned finds that this matter is suitable for disposition without oral
argument. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for June 15, 2021, is hereby VACATED for that
reason and Defendants’ Motion (dkt. 1478) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2021
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
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?