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)

Download PDF
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

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?