UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
July 7, 2011
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORP., ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge United States District Court
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (re: dkt. #82)
In an Order dated June 15, 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to stay, but granted Plaintiff an extension to July 8, 2011 to file her opposition to Defendants' motion for attorney fees.
See Dkt. #81. On July 7, 2011, just one day before her deadline to file the opposition, Plaintiff 19 filed another motion for extension of time, requesting "21 days so that Plaintiff's motion for a stay 20 of the proceedings filed in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be ruled on by that Court." See Dkt. #82.
As noted in the Court's June 15, Order:
This Court retains jurisdiction over Defendants' motion for attorney's fees despite Plaintiff's appeal. See Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1983) ("The district court retained the power to award attorneys' fees after the notice of appeal from the decision on the merits had been filed."). Should Plaintiff appeal the Court's ruling on the motion for attorney's fees, the appeals may be consolidated. Id. at 957 ("If a district court decides a fee issue early in the course of a pending appeal on the merits, and the fee order is appealed, the appeals may be consolidated.").
See Dkt. #81 at 1-2. 2
Thus, Defendants' motion for attorney fees was not stayed pending Plaintiff's appeal, and Plaintiff's opposition, if any, should be filed on July 8, 2011 as ordered by the Court. In light of 4 her pro se status, however, the Court will grant Plaintiff one final extension of time to file an 5 opposition to Defendants' motion for attorney's fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff's opposition is now 6 due by Wednesday, July 20, 2011, and Defendants' reply is now due by Wednesday, July 27, 2011. 7
The hearing on the motion remains set for September 1, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. Further requests for 8 extension of time are strongly disfavored.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.