UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 7, 2010
GILBERTSON DRAGLINES, INC., PLAINTIFF,
OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
OPERATING ENGINEERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL., COUNTER-CLAIMANTS,
GILBERTSON DRAGLINES, INC. COUNTER-DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
On November 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in this matter. Thereafter, on November 16, 2009, Defendants filed a joint document styled as both a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and an opposition to Plaintiff's previously filed request for summary judgment.
The hearing on both motions was ultimately continued to January 14, 2010, and minute orders were issued on November 23 and 24, 2009 requiring that any oppositions to the cross-motions be filed by December 24, 2009, with replies due not later than December 30, 2009.
On December 30, 2009, in response to Defendants' jointly filed cross-motion/opposition, Plaintiff filed a joint reply in support of its motion and in opposition to Defendants' motion. The following day, Defendants objected to Plaintiff's filing as untimely to the extent it comprised an opposition to Defendants' motion, arguing that the jointly filed document deprived them of the ability to file a reply before the scheduled January 14, 2010 hearing date. Defendants accordingly moved to strike Plaintiff's opposition and set a hearing on that motion for February 12, 2010.
In order to simultaneously adjudicate both the motions themselves and Defendants' Motion to Strike, the Court continues the cross-motions for summary judgment to be heard on February 12, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., the time and date already scheduled for the Motion to Strike. In the interim, Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition to their motion for summary judgment, should they choose to do so, not later than January 21, 2010. That reply can be submitted without prejudice to Defendants' claim that the opposition itself was untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.