IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 20, 2009
JAMES LOCKE, PLAINTIFF,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiff's counsel recently contacted the Judge's Deputy Clerk concerning his desire to have Defendants' dismissal motion, which is scheduled for hearing on February 23, 2009, continued. Plaintiff's attempt to seek a continuance is untimely since it violates Local Rule 78-230(g), which requires a request for continuance to be "made to the Judge . . . at least five (5) court days prior to the scheduled hearing date." Further, today the parties filed a stipulation in which they agree to continue the hearing date and state in a conclusory manner that "there is good cause for the continuance" since Plaintiff's counsel has a state court trial that conflicts with the hearing scheduled in this action. However, since it is unclear when Plaintiff's counsel became aware of this conflict and why a continuance was not sought in accordance with what is prescribed in Local Rule 78-230(g), the parties have not shown that the good cause standard has been satisfied.
I have already spent time reading the motion briefs and conclude that Defendants improperly include in the motion arguments attacking the complaint filed in another case pending in this district which was stayed and assigned to another district judge when the motion was filed. Defendants had no authority to litigate that stayed case and clearly should not have litigated it in this action when it was assigned to another judge.
Since Defendants' motion includes arguments that violate the stay issued in that case, the motion is stricken, and the hearing date is vacated.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.