Perez v. San Miguel Homes for the Elderly, LLC et al

Filing 20

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion to Shorten Time.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF
LABOR,

7

Case No. 15-cv-05556-DMR

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

v.

9
10

SAN MIGUEL HOMES FOR THE
ELDERLY, LLC, et al.,

11

Re: Dkt. No. 18

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

The court has received Plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time on his motion for

14

leave to file an amended complaint, and Defendants’ opposition thereto. [Docket Nos. 18, 19.]

15

Plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time does not comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3(a) and

16

may therefore be denied on that basis.1 However, the court finds that it would be more efficient to

17

hear Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint concurrently with Defendants’

18

motion to dismiss, which is set for hearing on February 25, 2016. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion

19

for an order shortening time is granted in part. The February 25, 2016 hearing on Defendants’

20

motion to dismiss is VACATED. The court will hear Defendants’ motion to dismiss and

21

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint together on March 10, 2016 at 11:00

22

a.m. Any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion is due by February 22, 2016, and any reply is due by

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Specifically, Plaintiff failed to briefly summarize the position each party had taken with respect
to the motion for leave to file an amended complaint and failed to describe the effect the requested
time modification would have on the schedule for the case, in violation of Civil Local Rules 63(a)(4)(ii) and 6-3(a)(6). Defendants argue that Plaintiff was also required to describe his
compliance with Civil Local Rule 37-1(a), and that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with defense
counsel prior to filing his motion. However, Rule 37-1(a) applies to motions to compel disclosure
or discovery; therefore, it is inapplicable to the present motion. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 63(a)(4)(i) (moving party must “[d]escribe[] the moving party’s compliance with Civil L.R. 371(a), where applicable” (emphasis added)).

S

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

7
8
9
10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

FO

LI

ER

A

H

6

yu

a M. R
______________________________________
ge Do n
dDonna n Ryu
Ju
M.
United States Magistrate Judge
RT

5

Dated: February 16, 2016

NO

4

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

R NIA

UNIT
ED

2

February 26, 2016.

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C