Tamalpais Union High School District v. W.

Filing 66

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. STRIKING DEFENDANTS FIRST 57 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES; GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 64 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR CALENDAR CLARIFICATION.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2018) Modified on 4/12/2018 TO CORRECT TYPO (ndrS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

8

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER STRIKING DEFENDANT’S
FIRST MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES; GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
CALENDAR CLARIFICATION

Defendant.

9
10

Case No.16-cv-04350-HSG

Re: Dkt. Nos. 57, 64

v.
D. W.,

12
13

On February 27, 2018, Defendant D.W. filed a motion for attorney’s fees. Dkt No. 57.

14

After being directed by the Clerk on February 28, 2018 to re-notice the motion, Dkt. No. 58,

15

Defendant instead filed an amended motion on March 3, 2018, Dkt. No. 59. The Clerk

16

accordingly issued an electronic filing error on March 5, 2018 directing Defendant to refile the

17

motion in its entirety. Defendant did not file his amended motion for attorney’s fees until March

18

21, 2018. Dkt. No. 63. Plaintiff Tamalpais Union High School District, in the meantime, had

19

already filed an opposition to Defendant’s first motion for attorney’s fees on March 18, 2018.

20

Dkt. No. 61. Due to its confusion as to which motion was operative, Plaintiff also filed an

21

opposition to Defendant’s amended motion on April 11, 2018. Dkt. No. 65. Defendant has not

22

filed a reply brief in support of either motion.

23

In order to provide clarity as to which motion is properly before this Court, the Court

24

STRIKES Defendant’s first motion for attorney’s fees filed on February 27, 2018, Dkt. No. 57, as

25

well as Plaintiff’s opposition to that motion, Dkt. No. 61. Defendant’s amended motion for

26

attorney’s fees, filed on March 21, 2018, is the operative motion. The Court further GRANTS

27

Plaintiff’s administrative motion for a calendar clarification. Dkt. No. 64. Accordingly, April 11,

28

2018 is deemed to be the deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition to the amended motion, which

1

Plaintiff timely filed, and Defendant must submit a reply brief in support of the amended motion

2

no later than April 18, 2018.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/12/2018

5
6
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
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