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.

Susan L. Light v. Sacramento Regional Transit District

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


February 25, 2013

SUSAN L. LIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

On January 22, 2013, defendant Sacramento Regional Transit District filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.*fn1 (Dkt. No. 7.) The next day, on January 23, 2013, the remaining defendants Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 256 and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, International Headquarters also filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 8.) Both motions were noticed for a hearing to take place before the undersigned on March 7, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.)

On February 21, 2013, plaintiff filed a response and a motion for a 120-day continuance, also set for hearing on March 7, 2013. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.)*fn2 Plaintiff's filings do not substantively address defendants' arguments, but indicate that she has been vigorously looking for counsel to represent her, that she has found counsel who may do so, but that plaintiff's potential attorney did not have sufficient time to review her case and prepare a response to defendants' motions to dismiss. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks a 120-day continuance.

After reviewing the papers in support of plaintiff's motion for continuance, the courts concludes that a hearing is unnecessary and that the motion can be resolved on the papers and record before the court. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). In light of plaintiff's pro se status, and the early posture of this case (which was only filed on December 28, 2012), the court finds it appropriate to grant a reasonable continuance to allow plaintiff to obtain counsel and file an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss. However, the court also concludes that a 120-day extension is excessive. Instead, an approximately 60-day extension should be sufficient to allow plaintiff to retain counsel, and for the potential attorney to review plaintiff's case and file an appropriate response to defendants' motions to dismiss. In the event that plaintiff is unable to obtain counsel, this extension would also allow plaintiff additional time to prepare an opposition to the motions while simultaneously preserving defendants' rights to have the case move forward and their arguments heard.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion for a continuance (dkt. no. 9) is GRANTED IN PART.

2. The March 7, 2013 hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 7, 8) is VACATED and CONTINUED until May 9, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned.

3. Plaintiff shall have until April 25, 2013, to obtain counsel and file a written opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, to the motions to dismiss. If plaintiff is unable to obtain counsel, plaintiff shall nonetheless file her opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to the motions no later than April 25, 2013.*fn3

4. Defendants may file any reply briefs to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before May 2, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.