Employment Development Department et al v. Bertuccio

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEFS. Signed by Judge Koh on 9/29/2010. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2010)

Employment Development Department et al v. Bertuccio

Doc. 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) FRANK BERTUCCIO, ) ) Appellee. _______________________________________ ) ) CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS STATE ) LICENSE BOARD, et al., ) ) Appellants, ) v. ) ) FRANK BERTUCCIO, ) ) Appellee. _______________________________________ ) FRANK BERTUCCIO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS STATE ) LICENSE BOARD, et al., ) ) Appellees. ) ) 1
Case No.: 09-CV-05209, 09-CV-5292, 09-CV-5454 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Dockets.Justia.com

Case No.: 09-CV-05209-LHK ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN RELATED CASES

Case No.: 09-CV-05292-LHK

Case No.: 09-CV-05454-LHK

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

For each of these related cases, the notice of appeal from bankruptcy court was filed in November 2009. On June 11, 2010, the Honorable James Ware granted the parties' stipulation to consolidate briefing and extend deadlines for the briefing schedule. Pursuant to the parties' own stipulation, the Appellants would file opening briefs by September 28, 2010, the Appellees would file respondent briefs by October 29, 2010, and the Appellees would file reply briefs by December 3, 2010. Without an Order approving the parties' stipulation, opening briefs would have been due in mid-July, respondent briefs would have been due 21 days later, and reply briefs would have been due 14 days after service of respondent briefs. See Local Bankruptcy Rule 8010-1. On September 28, 2010, the same day as the deadline for filing opening briefs, the parties filed yet another stipulation agreeing to further extension of briefing deadlines. In violation of Civil Local Rule 6-2, however, the parties did not set forth with particularity the reasons for the requested extension of time. In fact, the parties provided no reason at all. The fact that certain counsel had been on extended leave through the middle of September 2010 does not justify the current request. Judge Ware's Order of June 11, 2010 expressly relied on counsel's leave in granting the current schedule -- it bears repeating, a schedule proposed by the parties and adopted back in June 2010. Accordingly, the parties' request for extension of time to file briefs is DENIED. Although the deadline for filing opening briefs has already passed, the Court grants Appellants leave to file opening briefs by Monday, October 4, 2010. Appellees' respondent briefs remain due on October 29, 2010, and Appellants' reply briefs remain due on December 3, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2010 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 2
Case No.: 09-CV-05209, 09-CV-5292, 09-CV-5454 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AMENDED BRIEFING SCHEDULE