Golinski v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Filing 22

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING 13 Ex Parte Motion to Shorten Time for Notice and Hearing for Preliminary Injunction. Defendant is to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injuncition on or before 03/09/10; Plaintiff may file reply by 03/09/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2010) Modified on 2/12/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 KAREN GOLINSKI, 7 8 vs. Plaintiff, Case No: C 10-0257 SBA ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF KAREN GOLINSKI'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICE AND HEARING FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

9 UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 10 Defendant. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Karen Golinski's Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Notice and Hearing Motion for Preliminary Injunction.1 (Docket No. 13.) Plaintiff, a staff attorney with the Ninth Circuit, has filed the instant action seeking a preliminary injunction and an order of mandamus against the Office of Personnel Management that would allow her to enroll her same-sex spouse in her family health care plan. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(a)(3), a motion to shorten time must identify "the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time." In the instant case, Plaintiff specifically describes the harm as the daily "risk and related anxiety that her spouse will become ill or suffer an injury for which necessary treatment will not be fully insured or which will incur devastating costs." (Mot. at 2:7-9.) Plaintiff's anxiety is therefore predicated upon the possibility that her spouse may require treatment that may not be covered by her current health insurance plan.

Defendant filed an opposition to the instant motion on February 2, 2010 (Docket No. 17) and Plaintiff a reply on February 3, 2010 (Docket No. 20).
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Court is sensitive to Plaintiff's concerns and the import of the underlying issues. However, given the tenuous nature of the harm at this juncture, the Court does not find this sufficient to warrant expediting the hearing on Plaintiff's motion ahead of other parties who similarly suffer the anxiety of a potential unfavorable turn of events. Notwithstanding the above, the Court will set an expedited briefing schedule and may, in its discretion, decide the matter on the pleadings or accelerate the hearing at a later date should an opening in the Court's currently full calendar become available. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff Karen Golinski's Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Notice and Hearing Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 2. Defendant is to file a response to Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on or before March 2, 2010. 3. Plaintiff may file a reply on or before March 9, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/10/10

____________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-2-