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.

Lorianne Watts v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay; Bureau

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


December 21, 2010

LORIANNE WATTS,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL N. KAY; BUREAU
OF COLLECTION RECOVERY; T-MOBILE USA, INC.; AND DOES I-X,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME ENHANCED RECOVERY CORP.;

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

On December 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Remand to be heard on March 3, 2011. On December 16, 2010, Plaintiff moved to shorten time so that her motion to remand could 20 be heard at the previously scheduled hearing on Defendant T-Mobile's motion to dismiss on January 13, 2011. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3(c), any opposition to Plaintiff's motion to 22 shorten time was due by Monday, December 20, 2010.

On December 20, 2010, Defendant T-Mobile filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to shorten time. Def.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 70. T-Mobile argues that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff's motion does not adequately address the requirements set forth in the Local The Court acknowledges that there are a number of deficiencies in Plaintiff's motion. For instance, the motion does not describe Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a stipulation to shorten time or the effect of the requested modification on the case schedule, as required by Civil Local Rule 6-3(a).

Rules and does not identify substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if time is not shortened.

Case No.: 10-CV-02606-LHK

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

Nonetheless, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion adequately describes the harm she seeks to avoid. Plaintiff's forum of choice was the California Superior Court. Removal of this action to federal court inevitably caused some delay of her case, and Plaintiff seeks to return to state court without incurring further delay. While the Court does not express an opinion on the merits of Plaintiff's motion to remand, the Court agrees that it is important to determine the appropriate forum for this action as soon as possible. T-Mobile has not argued that Defendants would be prejudiced if the motion to remand is heard on January 13, 2011, and in fact Defendant Enhanced Recovery Corp.'s Opp'n to Pl.'s Second Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 69. The issues presented in Plaintiff's motion to remand are narrow in scope, and the Court believes that they may be adequately addressed in time for the January 13 hearing date.

Motion to Remand shall be heard on January 13, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. In order to avoid possible 15 prejudice to Defendants from a shortened briefing schedule, the Court will provide extra time for 16 the filing of opposition briefs, as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Recovery has already filed an opposition to Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand. Def. Enhanced United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to shorten time. Plaintiff's Second unchanged, as set by the Local Rules.

(1) Opposition briefs shall be filed by Monday, January 3, 2011.

(2) Plaintiff shall file a reply by Friday, January 7, 2011.

The briefing schedule for Defendant T-Mobile's Motion to Dismiss shall remain

Case No.: 10-CV-02606-LHK

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

20101221

© 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.