Marcelo v. Perfumania, Inc. et al

Filing 45

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 44 Ex Parte Application (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 OAKLAND DIVISION 5 ERLINDA MARCELO, Case No: C 10-4740 SBA 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION 8 PERFUMANIA, INC.; MAGNIFIQUE 9 PARFUMES AND COSMETICS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 Defendants have filed an ex parte application to extend the law and motion cut-off of 14 December 13, 2011. Specifically, Defendants indicate that they intend to file a dispositive 15 motion, but that the Court’s law and motion is full on that date. In addition, Defendants 16 state that their proposed extension will facilitate the parties’ settlement discussions. 17 Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ request. Good cause appearing, 18 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 19 1. 20 21 Defendants’ ex parte application to extend the law and motion cut off is GRANTED. 2. Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment1 by January 3, 22 2012. Plaintiff’s opposition shall be filed by no later than January 17, 2012, and 23 Defendants’ reply shall be filed by no later than January 24, 2012. The motion hearing will 24 take place on February 7, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. The Court, in its discretion, may resolve the 25 1 Defendants’ ex parte application makes reference to “motions for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment and a motion to exclude expert witnesses. The 27 Court’s Standing Orders permit only one summary judgment motion per side. To the extent that Defendants intend to raise the issue of Plaintiff’s experts at this juncture, they 28 shall do so in the same brief as their motion for summary judgment. 26 1 motion without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The parties are 2 advised to check the Court’s website to determine whether a court appearance is required. 3 4 3. The Order for Pretrial Preparation, filed April 15, 2011, (Dkt. 26) is MODIFIED as follows: 5 a. Pretrial preparation due: 3/13/12 6 b. Motions in limine/objections to evidence2: 3/20/12 7 c Responses to motions in limine/ objections to evidence: 3/27/12 Replies in support of motions in limine/ objections to evidence: 4/3/12 e. Pretrial conference: 4/17/12 at 1:00 p.m. f. Trial date (5-6 day jury trial): 4/30/12 at 8:30 a.m. g. Mandatory settlement conference: 2/13/12-3/9/12 8 d. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 4. No further requests to continue the trial date or any other scheduled dates or deadlines will be considered absent exigent and unforeseen circumstances. 16 5. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 This Order terminates Docket 44. Dated: October 28, 2011 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 All motions in limine submitted by each party shall be set forth in a single memorandum, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length. Responses to the motions in limine shall be set forth in a single memorandum, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length. Reply 26 briefs shall not exceed six (6) pages. No motions in limine will be considered unless the parties certify that they met and conferred prior to the filing of such motion. Any request to 27 exceed the page limit must be submitted prior to the deadline for these briefs and must be supported by a showing of good cause, along with a certification that the applicant has met 28 and conferred with the opposing party. 25 -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?