UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 5, 2012
MATTHEW A. I. UA CRUADHLAOICH, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN E. BRYSON, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeffrey S. White United States District Judge
JOINTADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
5 days, until December 14, 2012, for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Notice of Motion and 6 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (hereinafter "Motion to Dismiss"), which was filed on 7 November 20, 2012. Defendant does not oppose this administrative motion. In support, the 8 9 1. In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant raised various procedural and substantive issues 11 in arguing for the dismissal of each of Plaintiff's causes of action. These issues involve detailed 12 issues of law and, moreover, the motion is a critical one, requiring Plaintiff to invest a reasonable 13 amount of time in order to adequately respond to same.
JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Matthew A.I. Ua Cruadhlaoich hereby moves for an extension of 10 calendar Plaintiff states as follows:
2. Plaintiff stated in his Plaintiff's Separate Case Management Statement (hereinafter "Case Management Statement") filed on Friday, November 30, 2012, that he intended to timely respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff stated this in the anticipation that he would 18 be able to complete an adequate response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss over this past 19 weekend of December 1 through December 2, 2012. 20 21 22 libraries, for most of his legal research.
4. Plaintiff works full-time during the week. 5. At the time of filing his Case Management Statement, Plaintiff, who is not an attorney 25 and does not regularly make use of legal resources, did not realize that the law libraries in his 26 area, the Bernard E. Witkin Alameda County Law Library in Hayward, California, and the 27 28
3. Because Plaintiff is pro se, he must rely upon public resources, especially law 23 24 Bernard E. Witkin Alameda County Law Library in Oakland, California, are closed on the weekends. Plaintiff realized after filing his Case Management Statement that he would not 2 practically be able complete his research this past weekend. 3
6. Plaintiff was not able to visit either of these law libraries on Monday, December 3, 4 2012, or today, Tuesday, December 4, 2012, due to his work obligations. 5 6 7. As the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for February 22, 2013, and the Initial Case Management Conference in this case is scheduled for March 15, 2013, the 8 extension of time sought herein would not reasonably be expected to interfere with the overall 9 pace of progress of this case. 10
8. The parties have conferred. Defendant does not oppose the extension and has agreed 7 11 12 to jointly file this administrative motion to expedite the Court's review and consideration of 13 same.
9. For all of the above reasons, Plaintiff herein requests an extension through Friday, December 14, 2012, for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, which would 16 render the response due 24 days from the date Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss. 17 Defendant's reply would then be due 7 days after Plaintiff files his opposition. 18 19
Dated: December 4, 2012 15 20 /s/____________ Matthew A. I. Ua Cruadhlaoich 21 Plaintiff Pro Se MELINDA L. HAAG 22 23 United States Attorney 24 /s/_______ 25 Juan D. Walker*fn1 Attorneys for the Federal Defendant
IT IS SO ORDERED. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is due on or before December 14, 2012. Defendant's reply brief is due on or before December 21, 2012. 4