Lee et al v. Retail Store Employee Building Corporation et al

Filing 68

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 64 plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time re 60 defendants' MOTION to Dismiss. Response due by 6/23/2016. Reply due by 6/30/2016. Motion hearing co ntinued to 7/19/2016, 10:00 AM. As to defendant Preservation Partners Management Group, within 10 days from the date of this order, plaintiffs to file either a stipulated dismissal or request for dismissal and proposed order. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MARIA W. LEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 5:15-cv-04768-HRL

v.
RETAIL STORE EMPLOYEE BUILDING
CORPORATION, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Re: Dkt. No. 64

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiffs Maria Lee and Wen Lee, who are now represented by counsel, request an

19

extension of time to file their opposition to defendants Retail Store Employee Building Corp.’s

20

and Casa Del Pueblo Apartments’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the First Amended

21

Complaint. Under the circumstances presented, this is a matter that reasonable counsel should

22

have been able to resolve, and defendants’ opposition to the requested extension is not well taken.

23

Nevertheless, this court is aware that plaintiffs’ counsel’s upcoming trial before Judge Koh has

24

just been continued. Accordingly, plaintiffs will be given more time, but the court will require

25

their opposition papers to be filed no later than June 23, 2016. Reply papers are due by June 30,

26

2016. The motion hearing is continued to July 19, 2016, 10:00 a.m.

27
28

As for defendant Preservation Partners Management Group (PPMG), Maria and Wen Lee
state that they do not intend to oppose PPMG’s pending summary judgment motion and are

1

inclined to dismiss PPMG without prejudice. Because PPMG has filed both an answer and a

2

summary judgment motion, at this point, plaintiffs can dismiss PPMG only through (1) a

3

stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared in the action or (2) a court order. Fed. R. Civ.

4

P. 41(a)(1), (2). Accordingly, within 10 days from the date of this order, plaintiffs shall file

5

either a stipulated dismissal or a request for dismissal and proposed order.

6
7

SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2016

8
HOWARD R. LLOYD
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

5:15-cv-04768-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

Annette D. Kirkham

3

David Rush Tredway

4

Jeff Brandon Atterbury [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

5
6

Thomas Philip Zito

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail]

[e-mail]

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3