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.

Lonnie Moore Iii v. Patrick R Donahoe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Northern District of California San Francisco Division


July 3, 2012

LONNIE MOORE III,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
PATRICK R DONAHOE,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laurel Beeler United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR THE PLEADINGS DEFENDANT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT 13 OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON

[Re: ECF Nos. 32, 33, 34]

Donahoe in his official capacity as Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service.

On November 14, 2011, Plaintiff Lonnie Moore III filed this action against Defendant Patrick Complaint, ECF No. 1. Mr. Moore brings employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the 19 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and the Rehabilitation 20 Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Id. 21 On June 5, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Mr. 22 Moore failed to allege facts to support his claims, and, even if he did, failed to timely exhaust his 23 administrative remedies. Motion, ECF No. 32. On June 28, 2012, Mr. Moore timely filed an 24 opposition to Defendant's motion. Opposition, ECF No. 33; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); N.D. Cal. Civ. 25 L.R. 7-3(a). This means that Defendant's reply currently is due on July 5, 2012. See N.D. Cal. Civ. 26 L.R. 7-3(c). 27 On July 3, 2012, the court received from Mr. Moore a supplemental opposition. Supplemental 28 Opposition, ECF No. 35. From what the court can tell, it generally disagrees with the arguments

1 Defendant made in his motion. See id. It also attaches a number of documents that have already 2 been filed or submitted in this case. See id. 3 Even if supplemental oppositions were allowed (which they are not), Mr. Moore's supplemental 4 opposition is untimely. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Nevertheless, given Mr. Moore's pro se 5 status, the court will not strike it. Instead, the court will extend the deadline for Defendant to file a 6 reply in support of his motion. As noted above, the supplemental opposition does not appear to 7 contain complex legal arguments or raise new factual issues that might otherwise prejudice 8 Defendant. In these circumstances, finds good cause to extend the deadline for Defendant to file a 9 reply to 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 10, 2012. 10 The court warns Mr. Moore that, in the future, he must comply with the court's local rules when 11 filing documents with the court. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120703

© 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.