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.

Larry Tyrone Brantley, Sr., Ellen v. Garrett Boyd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 15, 2011

LARRY TYRONE BRANTLEY, SR., ELLEN
BRANTLEY, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
GARRETT BOYD, MODO REALTY, INC., ROYAL CROWN MORTGAGE, SERGEI KLYAZMIN, ACADEMY ESCROW, DEFENDANTS.

TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER GRANTING CONTINUANCE

On January 7, 2011, Plaintiffs Larry Brantley and Ellen Brantley ("Plaintiffs") filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 16 against Defendants Modo Realty, Inc., Royal Crown Mortgage, and ("Mot."). The hearing on the Motion was scheduled for February 11, 178 ("Opp'n"). Plaintiffs immediately filed a two-page "Reply to

In their Reply, Plaintiffs note that Defendants filed their Opposition only fourteen days before the date of the hearing 24 instead of the twenty-one days before the date of the hearing 25 required by Civil Local Rule 7-3. Reply at 2. The date on which Defendants filed their Opposition was in fact the same date on 27 which, according to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiffs were required 28 to file their Reply. Plaintiffs therefore did not have sufficient

Sergei Klyazmin (collectively, "Defendants"). ECF No. 168 2011. Defendants filed an Opposition on January 28, 2011. ECF No.

Late Filing of [Defendants'] Opposition." ECF No. 186 ("Reply").

time to consider the Opposition before entering their Reply.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to disregard Defendants' Opposition

3 and grant Plaintiffs' Motion due to Defendants' tardy filing.

While the Court does not condone violations of the Civil Local Rules, it finds that the interests of justice would not be served 6 by granting Plaintiffs' Motion due to Defendants' filing error.

Rather, the Court finds it appropriate to grant a fifteen-day 8 continuance to allow Plaintiffs to file a supplemental reply to Defendants' Opposition if they so desire. The Court also puts

Defendants on notice that further violations of the Civil Local Rules will not be tolerated. 12

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs a fifteen-day

13 continuance to file a supplemental reply to Defendants' Opposition. Plaintiffs shall have until midnight on March 30, 2011 to file a 15 supplemental reply if they so desire. 16 17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20110315

© 1992-2011 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.