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.

Kim v. City of Santa Clara

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


March 22, 2010

INSOOK KIM, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST FOR AZIZ R. JAMES, DECEDENT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF SANTA CLARA; SCOTT FITZGERALD; TROY JOHNSON; AND DOES 1 TO 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME, SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND VACATING HEARING

In this Section 1983 case, plaintiff Insook Kim has filed a motion to amend her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Kim seeks to add two additional Santa Clara Police Department officers, Lieutenant Phil Cooke and Captain Diana Bishop, as defendants; and also to drop her fifth and sixth claims for relief. Simultaneously with the motion to amend, Kim filed the instant motion to shorten time, contending that she was entitled to relief from Civil Local Rule 7-2(a)'s 35-day hearing requirement because a potentially relevant statute of limitations would expire on April 5, 2010, and the earliest hearing date available to her under the 35-day rule was April 22, 2010. As an alternative, Kim requests an early hearing date of April 1, 2010. Defendants oppose the motion to shorten time, contending it was promulgated purely for harassment purposes.

The Court has determined that the underlying motion to amend is capable of being determined without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the motion to shorten time will be granted, but no hearing will be held. The parties shall comply with the following briefing schedule:

* Plaintiff's Motion to Amend: filed March 18, 2010

* Defendants' Opposition to Motion to Amend: due March 29, 2010

* Plaintiff's Reply to Motion to Amend: due April 1, 2010

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100322

© 1992-2010 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.