Barajas Centeno v. City of Carlsbad et al

Filing 163

ORDER on Plaintiff's Extension Request (ECF 162-1). Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 9/8/2021.(jtz)

Case 3:19-cv-02098-L-DEB Document 163 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.2889 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE LUIS BARAJAS CENTENO,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No.: 3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
EXTENSION REQUEST (ECF 162-1)

v.
CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,
Defendants.

16

Pending before the Court is the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

17

On September 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ statement of

18

undisputed facts. (ECF 160). Plaintiff – in that filing – asked the Court to extend his

19

deadline to file a reply in support of his summary judgment motion, from September

20

3, 2021 to September 15, 2021. Id.

21

The Court issued a discrepancy order and struck that filing from the docket.

22

(ECF 161). It was improper to combine two motions (which resulted in a lack of

23

notice to Defendants on the ex parte request). (ECF 160). Plaintiff also failed to

24

submit the declaration required under Local Civil Rule 83.3 (and this Court’s Standing

25

Order). (ECF 161). And he failed to submit a proposed order to the chambers’ e-file

26

account. (ECF 161).

27
28

On September 4, 2021, Plaintiff refiled the response and extension request.
(ECF 162). Yet, he failed to cure the above deficiencies. Id.
1

3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB

Case 3:19-cv-02098-L-DEB Document 163 Filed 09/08/21 PageID.2890 Page 2 of 2

1

Plaintiff’s counsel contends he was unable to file a reply on time because he

2

was traveling in August. (ECF 161). But there is no reason Plaintiff waited until the

3

deadline to request an extension. The Court issued the revised schedule on the cross-

4

motions for summary judgment on July 23, 2021, a week before his trip began. (ECFs

5

123 & 157). And he did not file his request until four days after he returned. (ECF

6

160).

7

Plaintiff had sufficient time to file a reply (he already filed an opposition to

8

Defendants’ summary judgment motion). The Local Rules provide parties with 7 days

9

to file a reply. See Civ. L. R. 7.1. Even with the above travel schedule, Plaintiff has

10

now had more than that. (See ECF 160). He also had several prior extensions. (See

11

Docket). For those reasons, Plaintiff’s request is denied. The Court will nevertheless

12

authorize Plaintiff to file the reply no later than September 9, 2021.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2021

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

3:19-cv-2098-L-DEB