Watts v. Enhanced Recovery Corporation et al

Filing 71

ORDER GRANTING 67 First MOTION to Shorten Time. Hearing on 66 SECOND MOTION TO REMAND set for 1/13/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Lucy H. Koh. Signed by Judge Koh on 12/21/2010. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2010)

Download PDF
Watts v. Enhanced Recovery Corporation et al Doc. 71 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 LORIANNE WATTS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) ENHANCED RECOVERY CORP.; LAW ) OFFICES OF MITCHELL N. KAY; BUREAU ) OF COLLECTION RECOVERY; T-MOBILE ) USA, INC.; AND DOES I-X, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-02606-LHK ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME On December 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Remand to be heard on March 3, 2011. On December 16, 2010, Plaintiff moved to shorten time so that her motion to remand could be heard at the previously scheduled hearing on Defendant T-Mobile's motion to dismiss on January 13, 2011. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(c), any opposition to Plaintiff's motion to shorten time was due by Monday, December 20, 2010. On December 20, 2010, Defendant T-Mobile filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to shorten time. Def.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 70. T-Mobile argues that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff's motion does not adequately address the requirements set forth in the Local Rules and does not identify substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if time is not shortened. The Court acknowledges that there are a number of deficiencies in Plaintiff's motion. For instance, the motion does not describe Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a stipulation to shorten time or the effect 1 Case No.: 10-CV-02606-LHK ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME Dockets.Justia.com 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 of the requested modification on the case schedule, as required by Civil Local Rule 6-3(a). Nonetheless, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion adequately describes the harm she seeks to avoid. Plaintiff's forum of choice was the California Superior Court. Removal of this action to federal court inevitably caused some delay of her case, and Plaintiff seeks to return to state court without incurring further delay. While the Court does not express an opinion on the merits of Plaintiff's motion to remand, the Court agrees that it is important to determine the appropriate forum for this action as soon as possible. T-Mobile has not argued that Defendants would be prejudiced if the motion to remand is heard on January 13, 2011, and in fact Defendant Enhanced Recovery has already filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand. Def. Enhanced Recovery Corp.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Second Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 69. The issues presented in Plaintiff's motion to remand are narrow in scope, and the Court believes that they may be adequately addressed in time for the January 13 hearing date. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to shorten time. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand shall be heard on January 13, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. In order to avoid possible prejudice to Defendants from a shortened briefing schedule, the Court will provide extra time for the filing of opposition briefs, as follows: (1) Opposition briefs shall be filed by Monday, January 3, 2011. (2) Plaintiff shall file a reply by Friday, January 7, 2011. The briefing schedule for Defendant T-Mobile's Motion to Dismiss shall remain unchanged, as set by the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 21, 2010 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 2 Case No.: 10-CV-02606-LHK ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?