Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gill v. Chertoff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 18, 2009

HARCHARAN SINGH GILL AND BALJIT KAUR GILL PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; DAVID STILL, SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES; MICHAEL C. BIGGS, FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES SACRAMENTO SUB OFFICE. DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONER'S UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FOR FILING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Through their undersigned counsel, plaintiffs HARCHARAN SINGH GILL and BALJIT KAUR GILL hereby for a second time move the Court to extend the deadline fourteen (14) days for filing their motion for summary judgment. The parties remain in meaningful negotiations that have a likelihood of settling the case and ending the need of further litigation.

The motion is UNOPPOSED and based on the following grounds:

1. At a status conference conducted on November 12, 2008, the parties represented to the Court that they anticipated this case will be resolved through cross-motions for summary judgment, and, as a result, the Court entered a scheduling order that required plaintiffs' to file their motion for summary judgment of February 2, 2009.

2. Since that time, the parties engaged in meaningful settlement negotiations and are nearing a settlement in the case.

3. In anticipation of a settlement, plaintiffs' moved for a fourteen day extension of time to file their motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted.

4. The motion for summary judgment is now due on February 16, 2009.

5. The parties remain very close to settlement.

6. The likely settlement will eliminate the need of further litigation, including the scheduled cross-motions for summary judgment,

7. Thus plaintiffs' seek a second fourteen (14) day extension to file their motion for summary judgment on the grounds that a need for such a motion is unlikely based on the continued progress of the parties' settlement negotiations; and the parties anticipate that within two weeks they will reach or settlement or impasse that will result in them pursuing their cross-motions for summary judgment.

8. Because unnecessary litigation is disfavored, plaintiffs' second motion seeking a fourteen (14) day extension of time to their motion for summary judgment should be granted.

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their second motion to extend the deadline for filing their motion for summary judgment, and afford them until March 4, 2009, to do so.

DATED: February 18, 2009

Respectfully Submitted,

Jagdip Singh Sekhon, Esq. 1440 Broadway Suite 311 Oakland, Ca 94612 Telephone: (510) 893-0697 Facsimile: (510) 893-3712 E-Mail: jssekhon@sekhonlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

PROPOSED ORDER

Plaintiffs' unopposed motion seeking a fourteen day extension to file their motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is now due on March 4, 2009. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is now due on April 3, 2009.

20090218

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.