Acosta et al v. City of Salinas

Filing 35

Order by Judge Lucy Koh granting 31 Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Material and Directing Defendant to File Response (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016)

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

RITA ACOSTA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTARY
MATERIAL AND DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSE AS
TO WHETHER MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS
MOOT

v.
CITY OF SALINAS,
Defendant.

17

Re: Dkt. No. 31

18
On February 11, 2016, Defendant filed an ex parte motion for leave to file supplementary
19
material. ECF No. 31. In this motion, Defendant requested leave to file several exhibits, which
20
included a copy of Salinas City Ordinance No. 2567 and Salinas City Resolution No. 20908.
21
According to Defendant, Salinas City Ordinance No. 2567 and Salinas City Resolution No. 20908,
22
which were both adopted and approved on February 9, 2016, rendered moot Plaintiffs’ motion for
23
a preliminary injunction in the instant case. Id.
24
Because Defendant’s motion did not comply with Civil Local Rule 7-10, which governs
25
the filing of ex parte motions, the Court construed Defendant’s motion as a motion for
26
administrative relief under Civil Local Rule 7-11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, the Court
27
28

1
Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL AND DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSE AS TO WHETHER MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS MOOT

1

ordered Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendant’s motion by February 16, 2016. ECF No. 33.
On February 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a response to Defendant’s motion stating that

2
3

“Plaintiffs have no objection to [Defendant’s] filing the legislative enactments it seeks to file.”

4

ECF No. 32 at 2. Plaintiffs also stated that Plaintiffs would “file a document with the Court

5

indicating their position regarding how to move forward in light of [Defendant’s] recent legislative

6

enactments” by February 16, 2016. Id.

7

On February 16, 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Clerk of the Court that counsel was

8

having difficulties filing documents electronically. Accordingly, on February 17, 2016, Plaintiffs’

9

counsel sent a copy of Plaintiffs’ response via email to the undersigned Judge’s courtroom deputy
and to Defendant.1 Plaintiffs’ February 17, 2016 response contends that Salinas City Ordinance

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

No. 2567 and Salinas City Resolution No. 20908 do not render moot Plaintiffs’ motion for a

12

preliminary injunction.
In light of Plaintiffs’ February 11 and February 17, 2016 responses, the Court hereby

13
14

GRANTS Defendant’s motion for leave to file supplementary material. In addition, the Court

15

ORDERS Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs’ argument that the recent legislative enactments do

16

not render moot Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendant must respond by

17

February 22, 2016, and Defendant’s response is not to exceed five pages in length.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: February 17, 2016
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs’ February 17, 2016 response also included a declaration stating that Plaintiffs’ cocounsel from Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and Public Counsel Law Center had withdrawn from
the case. However, no motion to withdraw has been filed. If co-counsel intends to withdraw from
the instant case, co-counsel must file a motion to withdraw.
2
Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL AND DIRECTING
DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSE AS TO WHETHER MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS MOOT