Carol Furtado v. United Rentals, Inc. et al

Filing 77

ORDER ON AMENDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT SCHEDULE re 76 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Carol Furtado, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 76 Response ( Non Motion ), 72 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 74 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment . Responses due by 10/12/2015. Replies due by 10/30/2015. Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 1, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/2/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2015)

ers

10
11

LI

[e-mail]

7

ER

A

9

6

H

8

Steven L. Derby, SBN 148372
Derby Law Firm
1255 Treat Blvd, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
[phone] phone
[phone] fax

alez Rog

R NIA

S

[e-mail]

RT

5

nz
onne Go
Judge Yv

NO

4

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

3

UNIT
ED

2

Joan Herrington, SBN 178988
Bay Area Employment Law Office
5032 Woodminster Lane
Oakland, CA 94602-2614
[phone] phone
[phone] fax

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CAROL FURTADO

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

OAKLAND DIVISION

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

CAROL FURTADO,
v.

PLAINTIFF,

UNITED RENTALS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; RSC EQUIPMENT RENTALS,
INC., an Arizona Corporation; severally and as
joint employers; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04258-YGR
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS
TO UNTIMELY MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Date: November 17, 2015
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor
COMPLAINT FILED:
TRIAL DATE:

Feb. 10, 2014
Sept. 26, 2016.

23
24
25
26

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was due to be filed by midnight on Friday,
September 25, 2015. Plaintiff filed her motion at 1:25 a.m. on Monday, September 28, 2015.
The motion was filed late because Plaintiff’s counsel fell and sustained a concussion, diagnosed

27

on September 21, 2015. As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel had difficulty with fatigue, concentration, and

28

limited vision (black, swollen left eye and double vision in the right eye). Defense counsel Alexa
___________________________________________________________________________________
-1-

USDC-ND, CASE NO. 14-cv-04258-YGR. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO LATE FILING OF MPSJ

1

Woerner can corroborate Plaintiff’s goose-egg and black eye, because they were embarrassingly obvious

2

when Plaintiff’s counsel defended Plaintiff’s deposition on September 18, 2015. Despite her injuries,

3

Plaintiff’s counsel still thought she could meet the September 25, 2015 filing deadline. She did not take

4

into account the effect of her injuries on her ability to do quality work.

5

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel with a proposed stipulation designed to impose an

6

appropriate sanction on Plaintiff and to avoid prejudice to both defendants and the court. Instead of

7

striking the late filed pleading, which would cause extreme prejudice to Plaintiff, she proposed a

8

modification of the briefing schedule to deduct two (or three) days from Plaintiff’s time and use it to

9

enlarge Defendants’ time. Accordingly, the motion schedule would be modified as follows:

10
11

Defendants’ Opposition to Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment deadline changed
from 10/9/15 to 10/12/15.

12

Plaintiff’s Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion deadline changed from 10/23/15 to 10/20/15.

13

Defendants’ Reply in support of Cross-Motion remains the same at 10/30/15.

14

Hearing on Motions remains the same at 11/17/15 at 2:00 p.m.

15

Plaintiff believes that Defendants will be unable to raise issues of material fact in opposition to

16

her motion for partial summary judgment. If the Court allows Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary

17

judgment to stand, all the parties and the Court will ultimately benefit through the significant narrowing

18

of the issues for trial, pursuant to either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(a) or (56f). Accordingly,

19

the Court will be able to conduct trial more efficiently, and the parties will save time, money and effort

20

by focusing on the few remaining issues or perhaps the matter can be settled.

21
22

Date: September 30, 2015.

23

By: ________________/S/______________________
Joan Herrington
Attorney for Plaintiff

24
PROPOSED ORDER

25
26
27
28

Good cause appearing, the briefing schedule on the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment is modified as follows:
Defendants’ Opposition to Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment deadline changed
___________________________________________________________________________________
-2-

USDC-ND, CASE NO. 14-cv-04258-YGR. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO LATE FILING OF MPSJ

1

from 10/9/15 to 10/12/15.

2

Plaintiff’s Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion deadline changed from 10/23/15 to 10/20/15.

3

Defendants’ Reply in support of Cross-Motion remains the same at 10/30/15.

4

Hearing on Motions remains the same at 11/17/15 at 2:00 p.m.

5
6

October 2, 2015
DATED: _______________

7

United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

___________________________________________________________________________________
-3-

USDC-ND, CASE NO. 14-cv-04258-YGR. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO LATE FILING OF MPSJ