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.

Carol-Lee Zuvich, et al v. City of Los Angeles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 9, 2012

CAROL-LEE ZUVICH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dean D. Pregerson United States District Judge

O

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION [Docket No. 87]

Presently before the court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and/or to Schedule Both Defendant's and Plaintiff Zuvich, Dowd and Young's Motion for Summary Judgment for June 4, 2012; or for Continuance ("Application"). Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the court DENIES the Application in part, GRANTS the Application in part, and adopts the following Order.

First, the court denies Plaintiffs' request to strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. As Defendant explains in its Opposition, Defendant adequately complied with the relevant document filing and meet and confer requirements for its Motion, as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Central District Local Rules, and Magistrate Judge's Case Management Order.

Second, the court denies Plaintiffs' request to "restore[] to calendar" their previously filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs, then appearing in pro per, erroneously filed their Motions to be heard by this court, instead of by the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge therefore took the Motions off calendar. Plaintiffs, now represented by counsel, may re-file for summary judgment before the court, if they wish to do so.

Third, the Magistrate Judge has already issued an Order allowing Plaintiffs to file an expanded opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, not to exceed thirty-five (35) pages. The Order remains in effect.

Last, to accommodate Plaintiffs' counsel, the court grants Plaintiffs' request to continue the hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment from May 21, 2012 to June 4, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

In sum, the court DENIES Plaintiffs' request to strike Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Plaintiffs' request to restore to calendar their Motions for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Plaintiffs' request to continue the hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment to June 4, 2012. In accord with the Magistrate Judge's Order, Plaintiffs may also file an expanded opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, not to exceed thirty-five (35) pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120509

© 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.