Blackmon et al v. Tobias

Filing 67

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler GRANTING 58 Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply and Setting Hearing re 22 Motion for Writ of Attachment. Defendants Sur-Reply due by 09/30/11; Plaintiffs Sur-Reply due 10/07/11. Plaintiffs' Motion for a Writ of Attachment will be heard by this court on Thursday, 02/1612 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4, Third Floor, United States District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, on 9/26/2011. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2011) Modified on 9/28/2011 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
JAMES BLACKMON, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiffs,
v.

13
GLENN TOBIAS, et al.,
14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

No. C 11-02853 SBA (LB)
ORDER (1) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SUR-REPLY AND (2) SETTING
HEARING DATE FOR PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR WRIT OF
ATTACHMENT

In this action, which is currently pending before Judge Armstrong, James Blackmon and

17

John Gray (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Glenn Tobias, Jane Andreae, and their various companies

18

(collectively, “Defendants”), alleging numerous fraud-based claims related to several loans Plaintiffs

19

made to Defendants. Complaint, ECF No. 1. On June 13, 2011, Plaintiffs moved ex parte for a writ

20

of attachment. Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion, ECF No. 4. Judge Armstrong denied the motion without

21

prejudice. 6/16/2011 Order, ECF No. 12.

22

Accordingly, plaintiffs were free to file a noticed motion for the same relief, and, about five

23

weeks later, they did so. Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. 22. Judge Armstrong then referred the motion

24

to this court. Referral, ECF No. 29. While the motion is based on – and in fact incorporates –

25

Plaintiffs’ previous ex parte motion and the declarations that accompanied it, it nevertheless was

26

filed as a noticed motion. See Plaintiffs’ Motion, ECF No. 22. Defendants filed an opposition brief,

27

and Plaintiffs filed a reply brief. Defendants’ Opposition, ECF No. 37; Joinder in Opposition, ECF

28

No. 39; Plaintiffs’ Reply, ECF No. 52.

C 11-02853

1

Not content with the briefing already filed, Defendants filed a joint administrative motion for

2

leave to file a sur-reply. Defendants’ Joint Motion, ECF No. 58. Plaintiffs opposed the

3

administrative motion on the ground that Defendants attached their proposed sur-reply to their joint

4

administrative motion in violation of this District’s civil local rules. Plaintiffs’ Opposition, ECF No.

5

59. Defendants then filed a joint reply brief in support of their administrative motion, even though

6

reply briefs are not contemplated for administrative motions. Defendants’ Joint Reply, ECF No. 63;

7

see Civ. L.R. 7-11..

8
9

Despite the proliferation of impermissibly-filed briefs, the court believes that there is good
cause to allow further briefing on Plaintiffs’ motion for a writ of attachment. Plaintiff’s Motion,

10–2432 RS, 761 F.Supp.2d 904, 909 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (explaining that this District’s Civil Local

12
For the Northern District of California

ECF No. 22. See Michael Taylor Designs, Inc. v. Travelers Property Cas. Co. of Am., No. C

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

Rules “are structured to deter an endless cycle of filings and counter-filings while preserving the

13

Court’s ability to render a decision that is fully-informed by any particularly germane legal authority

14

that may emerge,” but noting that a court may, in its discretion, solicit further briefing on a matter).

15

Accordingly, Defendants may file a sur-reply as a new, separate entry on ECF no later than

16

September 30, 2011, and Plaintiffs may file their own sur-reply no later than October 7, 2011.

17

The parties also dispute when Plaintiffs’ motion for writ of attachment is scheduled to be

18

heard. As described above, Plaintiffs initially filed and noticed their motion for hearing before

19

Judge Armstrong, whose clerk then set it to be heard on December 6, 2011. Clerk’s Notice, ECF

20

No. 23. When Judge Armstrong referred the motion to this court, the December 6, 2011 hearing was

21

not vacated as it often is. Referral, ECF No. 29. Since the motion is to be heard by this court, the

22

December 6, 2011 hearing is hereby vacated. Instead, the motion will be heard by this court on

23

Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4, Third Floor, United States District

24

Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612.

25

This disposes of ECF Nos. 58, 64.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: September 26, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

28

C 11-02853

2