Snyder v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 227

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 226 Ex Parte Application for Extension of time. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment is due by October 31, 2019. Defendant's reply is due by November 7, 2019. The motion hearing is set for 11/21/2019 at 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/22/2019. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAMELA MARIE SNYDER,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-04228-KAW

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME
Re: Dkt. No. 226

12
13

On April 5, 2019, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. filed a motion for summary

14

judgment. (Dkt. No. 215.) Plaintiff’s opposition was due by April 19, 2019. After Plaintiff

15

Pamela Snyder failed to file her opposition, the Court issued an order to show cause, requiring

16

Plaintiff to explain why she did not timely file her opposition. (Dkt. No. 220.) On April 30, 2019,

17

Plaintiff filed an “Ex Parte Application” to extend the deadlines related to Defendant’s motion for

18

summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 223.) Plaintiff explained that she had been ill and was scheduled

19

for surgery in mid-May, with an expected 8-week recovery period. (Id. at 5.) On May 1, 2019,

20

the Court ordered that Plaintiff file her opposition by August 15, 2019. (Dkt. No. 224 at 2.) The

21

hearing was set for September 5, 2019. (Id.)

22

On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 39-page “Ex Parte Application” requesting that the

23

case deadlines be postponed by three months because she was still recovering from surgery. (Dkt.

24

No. 226 at 1.) Plaintiff also appears to request that summary judgment be granted in her favor,

25

although Plaintiff had no pending motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff’s ex parte

26

application included various objections and requests to strike Defendant’s exhibits in support of its

27

motion for summary judgment, a request to file her own motion for summary judgment, and

28

general argument that she is entitled to summary judgment. (Id. at 2, 11, 13-31.) Plaintiff

1

attached a doctor’s note, which stated that Plaintiff’s post-operative recovery had been

2

complicated by pain, and that she “would benefit from a three-month extension of her deadline to

3

meet her legal obligations, including appearances at hearings.” (Id., Exh. A.)

4

Defendant did not file an opposition to Plaintiff’s ex parte application.

5

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s ex parte application in part. Plaintiff’s opposition to

6

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment shall be due by October 31, 2019, and Defendant’s

7

reply shall be due by November 7, 2019. The hearing is set for November 21, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

8

The Court will not grant any further extensions. This case has been pending since September

9

2015, and it is Plaintiff’s obligation to prosecute this case or dismiss it.
The Court DENIES all other relief requested in Plaintiff’s ex parte application, including

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the extension of any other deadline such as the trial date. To the extent Plaintiff has substantive

12

arguments, such arguments should be made in her opposition to the motion for summary

13

judgment. They are not appropriate in an ex parte application.1 Further, the Court notes that per

14

Civil Local Rule 7-3, there is a 25-page limit on oppositions. If Plaintiff requires more than 25

15

pages, Plaintiff must file a request for a page extension, and explain why additional pages are

16

needed. (See Civil Local Rule 7-11(a).)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: August 22, 2019
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s “ex parte applications” also fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-10, which only
permits such motions when authorized by a statute, federal rule, local rule, or Standing Order.
Civil Local Rule 7-10 further requires that the ex parte application must include a citation to the
statute, rule, or order which permits the use of an ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought.
2
1