IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 23, 2012
MARSHALL-EDWARD: MIKELS, ET AL.,
ING BANK, FSB, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the court is plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to oppose defendants' motion to dismiss, and to continue the hearing date for defendants' motion (Doc. 33). The moving defendant, Ing Bank, opposes the motion.
Plaintiff Marshall-Edward Mikels request the continuance due to an out of town conference he is attending. He states that due to this conference, he will be unable to timely file an opposition to the motion. Defendants object as to the timing of the motion as well as plaintiff's reasons for his request. These objections are well taken. Plaintiff did not file his request for continuance for almost three weeks after defendants' motion was filed, he fails to indicate what the conference is and whether it is necessary for him to attend, and he did not purchase his travel tickets until after the defendants' motion was filed and set for hearing. In addition, plaintiff did not attempt to obtain a stipulation from the moving defendants. The simultaneous prosecution of multiple cases, in both state and federal court, is not reason enough to excuse missed deadlines and failure to follow the local rules. However, in the interest of justice, the court will allow a short continuance of the hearing. Plaintiffs are again cautioned that they are required to follow all local rules as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Continued disregard of the rules will result in sanctions. See Local Rule 110. Plaintiffs are cautioned to review the local rules carefully, especially those concerning parties appearing pro se, such as Local Rule 183, and those relating to the filing and opposing of motions, such as Local Rule 230.
The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, currently set for August 29, 2012, is reset for October 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., before the undersigned in Redding, California. Plaintiff does not mention or discuss his motion to consolidate, which is also on calendar August 29, 2012. However, the court finds a hearing on plaintiff's motion unnecessary at this time, vacates that hearing, and takes that motion under submission. See Local Rule 230(g). If the court determines a hearing is necessary, a hearing will be reset at a later date. Finally, defendant Naiman has filed a motion for attorney fees, which is set for hearing on September 12, 2012. This hearing will also be reset to October 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m..
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a continuance on defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) is granted;
2. The hearing on the motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is reset for October 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.;
3. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss shall be filed and served on or before September 6, 2012;
4. The hearing on plaintiff's motion to consolidate (Doc. 14) is vacated, and the motion is submitted on the pleadings; and
5. The hearing on defendant Naiman's motion for attorney fees (Doc. 37) is reset to October 17, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.