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.

G.M., A Minor, By and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kevin v. Dry Creek Elementary School District

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


April 10, 2012

G.M., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, KEVIN MARCHESE, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND LYNDI MARCHESE, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
DRY CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER EXTENDING TIME IN WHICH DEFENDANT MAY FILE A REPLY TO PLAINTIFFÂ’S OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND VACATING THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 16, 2012

Defendant filed a request under Local Rules 78-230(c) and 6-144(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 6(b)(1), in which it states the Court should "reject Plaintiff's late [opposition to Defendant's summary judgment motion.]" (Def.'s Supp. Brief 2:3.) In the alternative, Defendant requests an extension of time in which to file its reply to Plaintiff's late opposition.

Defendant argues that "[b]ecause the hearing date [for Defendant's summary judgment motion] is scheduled for April 16, 2012, Plaintiff's Opposition was due no later than April 2, 2012." (Def.'s Supp. Brief 2:19-20.) Defendant further argues that "Plaintiff's Opposition . . . was untimely filed on Saturday, April 7, 2012, without having obtained the necessary extension from the court or requesting a stipulation from opposing counsel." Id. 2:8-11. Defendant also argues "Plaintiff's late filing the weekend prior to the [date Defendant's] Reply is due prevents [Defendant] from timely filing its Reply, since it affords [Defendant] only eight . . . hours to review, analyze, research, and draft a Reply[.]" Id. 2:23-25.

Plaintiff's opposition brief was filed on two days, April 6 and 7, 2012, which is less than fourteen days before the date on which the hearing on Defendant's summary judgment motion is scheduled. Therefore, Plaintiff's opposition was not timely filed under Local Rule 78-230(c), which prescribes that an "[o]pposition . . . to the granting of [a] motion . . . shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date." L.R. 78-230(c).

Therefore, Defendant's request for an extension of time in which to file its reply to Plaintiff's late opposition is granted. Defendant has seven (7) days from the date on which this order is filed to file its reply brief.

Further, the summary judgment motion will be decided without oral argument and the hearing scheduled for April 16, 2012 is vacated.

L.R. 78-230(c) ("No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.").

20120410

© 1992-2012 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.