Spilsbury v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 51

ORDER re 49 GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME REGARDING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge James Ware on November 19, 2010. (jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2010)

Spilsbury v. Target Corporation et al

Doc. 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Thomas Spilsbury, Jr., v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 09-05955 JW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT /

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Target Corp., et al., Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Thomas Spilsbury, Jr.'s ("Plaintiff") Objection to Defendants' Improper Unilateral Setting of Premature Heating Date for Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Request for Enlargement of Time for Hearing of Motion for Summary Judgment. (hereafter, "Motion to Extend," Docket Item No. 49.) Plaintiff moves to modify the current schedule for Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that additional time is necessary for Plaintiff to obtain discovery regarding the blender that Plaintiff was allegedly harmed by. (Id. at 4.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion, contending that an extension would prejudice them. (See Docket Item No. 50.) Although the Court finds that Plaintiff's ground for a continuance is insufficient, the Court also finds that Defendants will not be prejudiced since the May 12, 2010 Scheduling Order sets March 21, 2011 as the last date for hearing dispositive motion. (See Docket Item No. 36.) In

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

addition, the Court finds that Defendants have improperly noticed their Motion for the December 20, 2010 hearing as that date had been closed out by the Court as of September 2, 2010.1 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and continues the hearing on Defendants' Motion from December 20, 2010 to February 28, 2011 at 9 a.m. The parties shall comply with the following briefing schedule: (1) On or before January 21, 2011, Plaintiff shall file its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) On or before February 4, 2011, Defendants shall file their Reply.

In light of this Order, the Court continues the Preliminary Pretrial Conference currently set for December 13, 2010 to March 21, 2011 at 11 a.m.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants filed their Motion on November 10, 2010. (Docket Item No. 39.) An evaluation of the Court's on-line calendar would have revealed that the Court's December 20, 2010 calendar is no longer available for noticed motions due its volume. 2
1

Dated: November 19, 2010

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Juliet MacMillin Lompa [e-mail] Timothy Dennis McMahon [e-mail]

Dated: November 19, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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