IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 12, 2009
MICHAEL HUFTILE, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SHERIFF LOU BLANAS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
Defendants move for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order filed January 13, 2009, which denied Defendants' request for leave to re-file their motion for summary judgment. The motion was timely filed on December 19, 2008 under the Scheduling Order. However, Defendants' mistakenly noticed the motion for hearing before the District Judge rather than the Magistrate Judge, and apparently did not know how to correct that mistake. Instead, Defendants filed unnecessary motions before the Magistrate Judge, which were denied, and now Defendants seek reconsideration of one of these denials.
Defendants' reconsideration motion is a product of the course of litigation Defendants pursued that needlessly convolutes the proceeding on Defendants' summary judgment motion. This litigation could have been avoided had Defendants been attentive to the applicable language in Local Rule 78-230(b); that language obligates the clerk to notify a party of a defectively noticed motion, and "of the next available dates and times for proper notice..." It is incumbent upon a federal practitioner to become familiar with rules applicable to practice in this court.
The applicable Scheduling Order only prescribed the date by which a motion was to be filed; it did not set a hearing deadline for a timely filed motion. Therefore, the last hearing date for Defendants to notice the summary judgment motion filed on December 19, 2008 before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, is April 29, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
Scheduling this hearing necessitates vacating the Final Pretrial Conference and Trial dates; accordingly, those dates are vacated. The Magistrate Judge will decide whether those dates are rescheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.