UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 28, 2008
MULTIFAMILY CAPTIVE GROUP, LLC, A MARYLAND CORPORATION; SAMANTHA GUMENICK, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFFS,
ASSURANCE RISK MANAGERS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION; LISA ISOM, AN INDIVIDUAL; NETWORK INSURANCE AGENTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to continue the hearing on defendant California Apartment Association's ("CAA") motion to dismiss and to extend the deadline by which plaintiffs may file an opposition. Plaintiffs contend that such a continuance is necessary because new counsel will be substituting into the case and will need additional time to respond to defendant's pending motion. Defendant CAA opposes the motion.*fn1
Plaintiff Multifamily Captive Group, LLC, filed its complaint against all defendants on March 10, 2008. Defendant CAA filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 3, 2008. On May 6, 2008, days before an opposition to the motion to dismiss was due, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, which the court granted and which rendered the pending motion to dismiss moot. The amended complaint, filed May 15, 2008, is identical to the original complaint with the exception of the addition of a new named individual plaintiff. Subsequently, on May 22, 2008, defendant CAA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On July 18, 2008, again only days before an opposition to the motion to dismiss was due, plaintiffs filed a request to continue the hearing based upon a pending substitution of new counsel. To date, new counsel has not filed an appearance for plaintiffs in this matter.
This court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket and calendar. Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). In this case, the court holds that a continuance is not warranted. Plaintiffs' current counsel has had more than adequate time to respond to defendant CAA's motion. Defendant CAA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's original complaint almost four months ago. It subsequently filed a substantially similar motion to dismiss plaintiffs' nearly identical amended complaint over a month ago. Further, in light of this pending request to continue, the court moved the hearing date for the motion to dismiss by two weeks.
Moreover, while plaintiffs' current counsel contends that their clients will be engaging new counsel to represent them in this matter, there is no substitute counsel on record to date. As such, plaintiffs' current counsel are the attorneys of record and are responsible for comporting with the court's deadlines in the representation of their clients.
Therefore, in light of the facts before the court, plaintiffs' motion to continue the hearing on defendant CAA's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.