Edwards v. Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc.

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTINGDEFENDANTS 34 MOTIONTO ENLARGE TIME;DENYINGPLAINTIFFS 37 MOTIONTO STRIKE (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RYAN EDWARDS,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 13-6006 CW

v.
DEPUY SYNTHES SALES, INC., a
Massachusetts corporation, as
successor in interest to SYNTHES
MAXILLOFACIAL, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO ENLARGE TIME;
DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE (Docket
Nos. 34, 37)

Defendant.
________________________________/
Defendant Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc. filed its motion to

12

dismiss on January 24, 2014.

13

due on February 14, it failed to file the brief until February 20.

14

Thus, on February 24, Defendant moved for an extension of time,

15

nunc pro tunc, to file its reply brief.

16

Although Defendant’s reply brief was

Rather than filing a timely opposition to Defendant’s motion

17

for an extension of time, Plaintiff Ryan Edwards moved on March 3,

18

2014 to strike Defendant’s reply brief.

19

Defendant’s reply brief effectively exceeded the page limits by

20

implicitly seeking to incorporate by reference its motion to

21

transfer, which it filed the same day as its reply on the motion

22

to dismiss.

He argues that

23

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS

24

Defendant’s motion for an extension of time (Docket No. 34) and

25

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Docket No. 37).

26

has not shown that he was prejudiced by Defendant’s failure to

27

file a timely reply brief on the motion to dismiss nor has he

28

shown that Defendant actually exceeded the page limits for that

Plaintiff

1

brief.

2

file its reply on the motion to dismiss -- and filed a motion to

3

transfer in conjunction with that reply -- Plaintiff is granted

4

six additional days to respond to Defendant’s motion to transfer.

5

That said, because Defendant took six additional days to

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to transfer

6

is due on March 13, 2014.

7

motion to transfer by March 20, 2014.

8

the motion to dismiss and the motion to transfer on Thursday,

9

April 3, 2014 at 2:00 p.m.

Defendant shall file its reply on the
The Court shall hear both

In the future, the parties shall

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

adhere strictly to all filing deadlines and page limits set forth

11

in the local rules.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated:

3/4/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2