Merritt et al v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al

Filing 189

ORDER GRANTING 182 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; DENYING 185 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ADVANCE HEARING. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 1/27/2015. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
DAVID MERRITT, et al.,

7

Case No. 09-cv-01179-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;
DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
ADVANCE HEARING
[Re: ECF 182, 185]

12
Before the Court are the parties’ respective administrative motions concerning the briefing

13
14

schedule and hearing date for Defendants’1 recently filed motions to dismiss. Pl.’s Admin. Mot.,

15

ECF 182; Def.’s Admin. Mot., ECF 185. Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, request an extension of

16

time in which to respond, while Defendants request that the Court hear the motions on February

17

19, 2015 in lieu of the earlier-filed Motion to Stay State Law Claims set for that date.

18

While the Court is sympathetic to their judicial economy arguments, Defendants filed their

19

motions to dismiss on January 20, 2015, and hearing the motions on February 19, 2015 would give

20

all sides—including the Court—fewer than the minimum 35 days between motion filing and

21

hearing contemplated by the Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). In light of Plaintiffs’ pro se

22

status, reducing the presumptive schedule set forth in the local rules is unlikely to promote judicial

23

efficiency or ensure that the Court benefits from both parties’ best briefing on the merits of the

24

pending motions. As such, the Court does not find good cause to deviate from the present hearing

25

date of April 30, 2015 on Defendants’ two motions (ECF 176 and 179), and Defendants’ request is

26

DENIED.

27
28

1

Excepting individual defendant John Benson.

1

As the motions to dismiss are to remain set for hearing on April 30, 2015, there is little

2

prejudice to granting Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time in which to respond.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Rule 8(a) and

4

12 motions (ECF 176 and 179 respectively) is due by February 16, 2015. Plaintiffs’ response to

5

Defendant Benson’s separate motion to dismiss (ECF 177) shall be due as set forth in those

6

parties’ stipulation filed January 22, 2015. ECF 184.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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