Kim v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 69

ORDER RE: 62 GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 03/22/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

*E-Filed 03/22/2010*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NO. C 09-00025 RS ORDER

For the Northern District of California

INSOOK KIM, individually and as Successor in Interest for AZIZ R. JAMES, Decedent, Plaintiff,

No. C 09-00025 RS ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND VACATING HEARING

v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA; SCOTT FITZGERALD; TROY JOHNSON; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. ____________________________________/ In this Section 1983 case, plaintiff Insook Kim has filed a motion to amend her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Kim seeks to add two additional Santa Clara Police Department officers, Lieutenant Phil Cooke and Captain Diana Bishop, as defendants; and also to drop her fifth and sixth claims for relief. Simultaneously with the motion to amend , Kim filed the instant motion to shorten time, contending that she was entitled to relief from Civil Local Rule 7-2(a)'s 35-day hearing requirement because a potentially relevant statute of limitations would expire on April 5, 2010, and the earliest hearing date available to her under the 35-day rule was

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

April 22, 2010. As an alternative, Kim requests an early hearing date of April 1, 2010. Defendants oppose the motion to shorten time, contending it was promulgated purely for harassment purposes. The Court has determined that the underlying motion to amend is capable of being determined without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the motion to shorten time will be granted, but no hearing will be held. The parties shall comply with the following briefing schedule: · · · Plaintiff's Motion to Amend: filed March 18, 2010 Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Amend: due March 29, 2010 Plaintiff's Reply to Motion to Amend: due April 1, 2010

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
NO. C 09-00025 RS ORDER

For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/22/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2