Brown et al v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 13

CORRECTED ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION 10 . Signed by Judge Beeler on 8/16/2011. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
EARL BROWN, SR., et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. C 11-02162 LB
ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION

13
14

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

15

[ECF No. 10]

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiffs Earl Brown, Sr. and Helen Brown – individually and as the personal representatives of

18

the estate of their son, decedent Earl Brown, Jr. – assert a number of federal and state claims arising

19

from the arrest and detention of their son by the City & County of San Francisco Sheriff’s

20

Department. Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 On July 21, 2011, Defendant City and County of San

21

Francisco moved to dismiss the complaint. Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7 at 1. Plaintiffs filed their

22

opposition on August 11, 2011. Opposition, ECF No. 10 at 1.

23

Civil Local Rule 7-3 requires opposition briefs to be submitted within 14 days after the motion is

24

served and filed or, in this case, August 4, 2011. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Rule 6(b) of the

25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the court to extend the time in which a party must perform

26

a specific act upon a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). And, “although extensions before

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-02162 LB
ORDER STRIKING OPPOSITION

1

expiration of the time period may be ‘with or without motion or notice,’ any postdeadline extension

2

must be ‘upon motion made,’ and is permissible only where the failure to meet the deadline ‘was the

3

result of excusable neglect.’” Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 896 (1990).

4

Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed seven days late. They did not file a motion seeking an
enlargement of time in which to file the opposition. And Plaintiffs’ counsel had been informed that

6

Defendant’s counsel would not be available to respond from August 12 (just one day after the late

7

opposition was filed) to August 29, 2011 (just three days before the motion is to be heard). ECF No.

8

9 at 3. Given these factors, the court strikes the opposition. See Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of

9

Commerce, 705 F.2d 1515, 1519 (9th Cir. 1983) (affirming decision to strike untimely opposition);

10

Herman Miller, Inc. v. Alphaville Design, Inc., No. C 08-03437 WHA, 2009 WL 86587, at *1 (N.D.

11

Cal. Jan. 13, 2009) (striking untimely opposition).

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

However, Plaintiffs may file a motion to enlarge time by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 17,

13

2011. This motion must comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3. And, if Plaintiffs wish to present

14

discovery issues to the court, they must comply with the procedures set forth in the undersigned’s

15

standing order and may not move for relief via an opposition brief.

16

Because Defendant’s counsel previously indicated that she will be unavailable from August 12

17

to August 29, 2011, the court extends Defendant’s time to respond until August 30, 2011. If

18

necessary, Defendant may request more time to respond to any motion to enlarge time filed by

19

Plaintiffs. If Plaintiffs ultimately are permitted to file an opposition, Defendant will be given time to

20

file a response.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 16, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

C 11-02162 LB
ORDER STRIKING OPPOSITION

2