Banga v. First USA, N.A. et al

Filing 160

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Granting 159 Ex Parte Application (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

GEORGE G. WEICKHARDT (SBN 58586)
WENDY C. KROG (SBN 257010)
ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
75 Broadway, Suite 202
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
CHASE BANK USA, N.A., sued erroneously herein
as FIRST USA, NA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
A Professional Corporation
San Francisco

Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

11
12

KAMLESH BANGA,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

FIRST USA, NA & CHASE BANK USA,
NA and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17

CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00975-SBA
CHASE BANK USA, N.A.'S EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DECLARATION
OF GEORGE G. WEICKHARDT;
PROPOSED ORDER
No Hearing

18
19
20

GEORGE G. WEICKHARDT DECLARES:
1.

I am an attorney at law duly authorized to practice before this Court, and I am

21

employed by the law firm of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, counsel of record for defendant

22

CHASE BANK USA, N.A., in the above-entitled action. I have personal knowledge of the

23

matters contained in this declaration and, if called as a witness to testify, I could and would

24

competently testify to them.

25

2.

Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. hereby requests leave to file a reply brief

26

beyond the deadline provided in the local rules in support of its motion for summary judgment.

27

Chase's motion was filed and served on October 22, 2013 (Docket No. 139), noticing the hearing

28

for December 3, 2013. Under the Local Rules, Plaintiff's opposition due no later than November
RC1/7215778.1/DJ2

-1-

CHASE BANK'S REPLY MPA IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

8, 2013. Most of the opposition was filed on November 18, 2013 (Docket Nos. 150-152) and

2

portions of it were even filed on November 20, 2013 (Docket Nos. 155-156), more than ten days

3

after the deadline.

4

3.

5
6

On November 22, the Court vacated the hearing scheduled for December 3, 2013

and took the matter under submission on the papers (Docket No. 158).
4.

Because plaintiff's opposition to the motion was filed 10 days or more after the

deadline provided in the local rules, Chase was unable to file a reply before the Court took the

8

matter under submission.

9

5.

Chase accordingly requests leave of Court to file the reply that is attached hereto

10
A Professional Corporation
San Francisco

Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley

7

as Exhibit A in support of its motion. Chase should not be deprived of the right to file a reply just

11

because the plaintiff was so late in filing her opposition. If the Court is going to consider Banga’s

12

late-filed opposition (which Chase has requested the Court not to do), then fairness and justice

13

require that the Court also consider Chase’s reply. Chase’s reply will also assist the Court in

14

evaluating the motion for summary judgment, because the reply describes the many flaws in the

15

opposition, including the fact that virtually all of the evidence presented by plaintiff is

16

inadmissible and a large part of it is submitted in violation of a protective order in another case.

17

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

18

forgoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in the City and County of San

19

Francisco, State of California on November 25, 2013.

20

/s/ George G. Weickhardt
GEORGE G. WEICKHARDT

21
22

ORDER

23
24
25

Chase Bank USA, N.A. is hereby authorized to file the reply in support of its motion for
summary judgment which is attached to the above ex parte application.

26
27

THE HONORABLE SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Judge of the United States District Court

28
RC1/7215778.1/DJ2

-2-

CHASE BANK'S REPLY MPA IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT