Moriarty v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 77

ORDER Granting 72 Joint Motion to Extend Briefing Dates; Order Continuing Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend; and Admonition to Counsel. The hearing on the motion for leave to amend, currently set for 3/11/2019, is continued to 4/8/2019 at 11:15 AM. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 2/22/2019. (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHELLE MORIARTY,

Case No.: 17cv1154-LAB (AGS)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING JOINT
MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEFING
DATES;

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendant.

15

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND; AND

16
17

ADMONITION TO COUNSEL

18
19
20
21

On February 15, the parties jointly moved to extend briefing dates on Plaintiff’s

22

motion for leave to amend, which is set for hearing on March 11. The parties represent

23

that counsel for Correctional Physicians Medical Group would be out of the country on

24

vacation beginning February 15, and counsel for Plaintiff is in Arizona with a critically ill

25

family member. As a result, Defendant CPMG asks that its opposition deadline be

26

continued from February 21 to March 4, and Plaintiff’s reply deadline be continued to

27

March 11. The parties represent that the requested extension will not affect any other

28

briefing dates.
1
17cv1154-LAB (AGS)

1

Under Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(1), CPMG’s opposition is currently due February 25,

2

not February 21. Furthermore, a motion for an extension should be filed as early as

3

possible, to give the Court (and, if applicable, other parties) time to act. Except in unusual

4

and unavoidable circumstances, seeking an extension on the day one leaves on a pre-

5

planned vacation is inadvisable.

6

Nevertheless, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadlines, the joint motion

7

(Docket no. 72) is GRANTED.

8

currently set for March 11, 2019, is CONTINUED to Monday, April 8, 2019 at 11:15

9

a.m., which is also the hearing date for Defendant Dr. Alfred Joshua’s motion for

10

partial summary judgment. This continuance does not affect any briefing deadlines,

11

all of which remain unchanged (except as modified in this order). If the parties believe

12

further extensions are appropriate, they should seek them by joint motion.

The hearing on the motion for leave to amend,

13

The parties apparently miscalculated the deadlines, mistakenly believing that

14

CPMG’s opposition was due February 21, creating a false sense of urgency. It has come to

15

the Court’s attention that a non-attorney called chambers asking whether the extension

16

would be granted, when, and what CPMG should do. Even bearing in mind that the joint

17

motion is an uncontested matter, these are improper questions, and furthermore any call

18

should have been initiated by an attorney. See Standing Order in Civil Cases, & 14. In

19

addition, the parties failed to submit a proposed order as required under local rules. Parties’

20

failure to comply burdens the Court, tends to cause delay, and creates a risk that the relief

21

granted will not be what the parties intended to ask for. In future, the parties must comply

22

with these requirements.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Date: February 22, 2019

26

__________________________
Hon. Larry A. Burns
Chief United States District Judge

27
28
2

17cv1154-LAB (AGS)