D.S. et al v. Santa Cruz City School District et al

Filing 33

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 30 Ex Parte Application ; granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to File (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SANTA CRUZ CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT;
)
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION; and SANTA CRUZ COUNTY )
CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE, )
)
)
Defendants.
D.S. and M.S., Parents, on behalf of Student,
J.S.,

Case No.: 12-CV-0850-LHK
ORDER EXTENDING TIME

D.S. and M.S. (“the Plaintiffs”) appeal the November 21, 2011 Order of Administrative

19
20

Law Judge Deidre Johnson regarding the provision of free appropriate public education to the

21

Plaintiffs’ son J.S. See Dkt. No. 1. At the Initial Case Management Conference held on August 1,

22

2012, the Court, in consultation with the parties, set the deadline to file a motion to amend the

23

complaint or add parties on October 24, 2012, and the deadline to file the Plaintiffs’ appeal brief on

24

November 1, 2012. See Dkt. No. 23 (Minute Entry and Case Management Order).
On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a four sentence long motion to amend the

25
26

complaint by adding J.S. as a party because J.S. had turned 18 on October 21, 2012.1 See Dkt. No.

27
1

28

The Plaintiffs did not properly notice their motion to amend the complaint. See Dkt. No. 28. The
Plaintiffs also failed to contact the Courtroom Deputy to schedule a hearing date. The Court
1
Case No.: 12-CV-0850-LHK
ORDER EXTENDING TIME

1

28. The opposition is due November 7, 2012, and the reply is due November 14, 2012. See id.;

2

Civil Local Rule 7-3. The Court scheduled a hearing for the earliest available date: January 24,

3

2013, the same date as the hearing on the Plaintiffs’ appeal. See Dkt. No. 31.

4

After the close of business on October 31, 2012, the day before the Plaintiffs appeal brief

5

was due, the Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to extend time for filing the appeal brief. See Dkt.

6

No. 30. Ex parte motions are not a proper method for requesting extensions of time. The

7

Plaintiffs ex parte motion argues that the Court should extend the deadline to file the Plaintiffs’

8

appeal brief until after the Court rules on the Plaintiffs’ pending motion to amend because

9

“amendment affects the content of the appeal brief and submitting the appeal brief prior to the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ruling would cause great prejudice to the Plaintiff.” Id.

11

On November 1, 2012, at 2:45 p.m., Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed the Courtroom Deputy to

12

ask whether the deadline to file the Plaintiffs’ appeal brief was extended until after the January 24,

13

2012 hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. The Plaintiffs apparently presumed

14

that the deadline was extended because the Plaintiffs did not file their appeal brief on November 1,

15

2012.

16

The Court will not extend the deadline for filing the Plaintiffs’ appeal brief until after the

17

Court has ruled on the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend for two reasons. First, the Plaintiffs agreed to

18

the Court’s deadlines for filing a motion to amend and filing the Plaintiffs’ appeal brief. See Dkt.

19

No. 23. The Plaintiffs agreed to these deadlines despite having knowledge of J.S.’s age and

20

impending birthday prior to the Initial Case Management Conference. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 14.

21

Second, extending the deadline to file the Plaintiffs’ appeal brief until after the January 24, 2012

22

hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend would result in an unreasonable delay in the case

23

schedule.

24

However, in light of the confusion of Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Court will accept the

25

Plaintiffs’ appeal brief, provided that it is filed by Monday, November 5, 2012. The Plaintiffs’

26
27
28

instructs the Plaintiffs’ counsel to review the Civil Local Rules and the undersigned judge’s
Standing Order before filing any further motions.
2
Case No.: 12-CV-0850-LHK
ORDER EXTENDING TIME

1

appeal brief may address the alternative possibilities that the Plaintiffs’ motion to add J.S. as party

2

is granted or denied.

3

The Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion also argues that the Plaintiffs have not received a Bates-

4

stamped copy of the administrative record to cite in their brief. See Dkt. No. 30. The Plaintiffs

5

therefore request an extension of time until after the Defendants have provided a Bates-stamped

6

copy of the administrative record. The Plaintiffs were participants in the administrative process

7

and have the administrative record. Moreover, the Defendants lodged the administrative record

8

with the Court on August 23, 2012, a week before the Court’s deadline to do so. See Dkt. No. 25.

9

As explained in the Defendants’ notice of lodging, the administrative record consists of six

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

transcripts, each consisting of consecutively numbered pages. See id. The parties may cite to the

11

administrative record using this pagination system. Accordingly, there is no need for the

12

Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with a Bates-stamped copy of the administrative record.

13

In sum, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiffs to file their appeal brief by Monday, November 5,

14

2012. The Court CONTINUES the deadline to file the Defendants’ opposition brief to December

15

19, 2012, and CONTINUES the deadline to file the Plaintiffs’ reply brief to January 8, 2013. All

16

other deadlines remain unchanged. The Court will not consider any further ex parte motions to

17

extend time.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: November 2, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-0850-LHK
ORDER EXTENDING TIME