Broadway Grill, Inc. v. Visa Inc. et al

Filing 14

Order by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 10 Motion to Shorten Time.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

BROADWAY GRILL, INC.,

8

v.

9

VISA INC., et al.,

10

Case No. 16-cv-04040-PJH

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CHANGE TIME
Re: Dkt. No. 10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the court is plaintiff Broadway Grill, Inc.’s motion to change time under

14

Local Rule 6-3. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff’s motion seeks to shorten the time for briefing and

15

hearing on its motion to remand, which is noticed for hearing on August 31. See Dkt. 9.

16

Having reviewed the papers and carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the court

17

hereby DENIES the motion to change time, for the following reasons.

18

Under Local Rule 6-3, a party must identify “substantial harm or prejudice that

19

would occur” if the court does not grant the motion. Here, the only prejudice identified by

20

plaintiff is that, before July 28, it must provide a notice of opposition to a conditional

21

transfer order (“CTO”) entered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPMDL”).

22

Plaintiff fears that, by the time its motion to remand is heard by this court, it will be “too

23

late” if the JPMDL acts on the pending motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District

24

of New York. Mot. at 4.

25

Plaintiff has not identified substantial prejudice to justify shortening the briefing and

26

hearing schedule. Plaintiff is only required to file a short notice of opposition to the CTO

27

on July 28; its substantive brief is not due until 14 days thereafter. See Rules of

28

Procedure for the JPMDL 7.1(c), (f). Plaintiff does not describe any reason that the

1

motion to remand must be heard before the JPMDL acts. In any event, there is no

2

substantial risk that this will actually occur, as the JPDML has not yet set a briefing

3

schedule and appears likely to not hear the matter until September. See Decl. of Sharon

4

Mayo, Dkt. 12 ¶¶ 8-10. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to change time is DENIED.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26, 2016

7
8
9

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2