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.

Chere D. Ward, An Individual v. Tom Vilsack

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


August 29, 2011

CHERE D. WARD, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO MODIFY PRETRIAL SCHEDULE (Doc. #25) AND CONTINUE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. #22)

The Stipulation to Modify Pretrial Schedule (Dkt. No. 25) and Continue Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 22) filed herein on August 25, 2011 (Dkt. No. 26), is hereby APPROVED, as follows:The deadlines set forth in the July 22, 2011 "Order Approving Stipulation to Modify December 1, 2010 Pretrial Scheduling Order and Continue Date for Hearing of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Dkt. No. 25), shall be modified (extended) as follows:Law and Motion cut-off: October 6, 2011 (from September 15,2011) Final Pretrial Conference: January 18, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. (from December 14, 2011), before U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, in Courtroom 3; a joint pretrial statement is due by January 4, 2012.

Trial: April 2, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. (from March 5, 2012), before U.S.District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, in Courtroom 3

It is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 22) currently scheduled for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on September 15, 2011, shall be continued to October 6, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25 of the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California.

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve her opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment by no later than September 15, 2011.

3. Defendant shall file and serve its reply brief by no later than September 29, 2011, in accordance with Local Rule 230(d).

4. As this is the second extension the court has granted with respect to the summary judgment briefing and trial dates in this action, the court is not inclined to grant further extensions absent a significant showing of good cause. Further, the court notes that the requested extension was filed on August 25, 2011, the very same day of plaintiff's deadline to file her opposition to the pending summary judgment motion. (Dkt. No. 25.) Eastern District Local Rule 144(d) provides that "Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor." Accordingly, future requests for extensions that are filed on the day of the deadline at issue may be summarily denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110829

© 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.