Prutsman v. Rust Consulting, Inc et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 16 Administrative Motion and setting schedule for briefing and hearing on defendants' Motion to Dismiss/Stay (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6

JAMES R. PRUTSMAN,

7
8
9

v.
RUST CONSULTING, INC., et al.,

No. C 12-6448 PJH
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION AND SETTING SCHEDULE
FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING

Defendants.
_______________________________/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12

Before the court is plaintiff’s administrative motion requesting the court to set

13

deadlines for the opposition and reply for defendants’ motion to dismiss/stay based on

14

defendants’ alleged “failure to provide proper notice” of their motion. Plaintiff argues that

15

defendants’ e-filing and electronic service of their motion at 6:09pm on Friday, December

16

21, 2012 were “invalid,” because they occurred “after the office of plaintiff's counsel closed

17

for the holidays.”

18

Plaintiff provides no support for the argument that a motion filed, served, and noticed

19

after the closure of opposing counsel’s office should be treated as invalid. Instead, plaintiff

20

cites only to Civil Local Rule 7-2, which requires all motions to be filed, served, and noticed

21

for hearing “not less than 35 days after service of the motion.” The rule does not contain

22

any requirement that motions be filed and served before close of business. In fact, Civil

23

Local Rule 5-1(e)(4) expressly states that “all electronic transmissions of documents must

24

be completed . . . prior to midnight in order to be considered timely filed that day.”

25

Accordingly, defendants did properly file and serve their motion on December 21, 2012,

26

and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

27
28

However, given the parties’ confusion regarding the local rules, and given the court’s
unavailability to hear defendants’ motion on the original noticed hearing date, the court will

1

extend the briefing schedule in this instance. To avoid any such confusion in the future, the

2

parties are advised to familiarize themselves with the local rules regarding motions, briefing

3

schedules, and filing deadlines. Plaintiff's opposition will be due on January 10, 2013, and

4

defendants’ reply will be due on January 17, 2013. Defendants’ motion to dismiss/stay is

5

set for hearing on February 27, 2013 at 9:00am.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2