UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 6, 2012
JOHN H. MCKOWN, IV,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO EXTEND DUE DATES IN THE
(Docket No. 53)
On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff John H. McKown, IV ("Plaintiff") filed an ex parte application requesting that an extension of time be granted modifying the parties' briefing schedule as to Plaintiff's Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") claims. (Doc. 53.) The Court notes that Defendant United States of America, et al. ("Defendants") do "not oppose" the request, although they would not agree to a stipulation and do "not necessarily join Plaintiff's request to modify the deadlines." (Doc. 53, p. 9.)
The Local Rules of the United States Court, Eastern District of California, Rule 144(c) provides that the Court may, in its discretion, grant an initial ex parte application for an extension of time. However, "[e]xcept for one such initial extension, ex parte applications for extension of time are not ordinarily granted." Local Rule 144(c).
Here, however, Plaintiff's request is the initial ex parte request for an extension of time; no previous extensions had been requested. As such, pursuant to the reasons provided in the ex parte application and for good cause show, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the briefing schedule for Plaintiff's APA claims is modified as follows:
1. Plaintiff's opening brief shall be filed on or before June 1, 2012;
2. Defendants' opening brief shall be filed on or before June 29, 2012;
3. Plaintiff's responsive brief shall be filed on or before July 13, 2012;
4. Defendants' responsive brief shall be filed on or before July 27, 2012; and
5. The matter is currently scheduled for hearing on September 5, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7. If the Court determines that oral argument is not necessary, the Court will inform the parties and vacate the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.