Jeanne Stathakos, v. Columbia Sportswear Company, 15-cv-04543-YGR. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180104a10
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF Re: Dkt. No. 131. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court, having considered all the papers filed by the parties in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief (Dkt. No. 131), hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' request for a one-week extension to file their reply in support of their motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. They must file their reply no later than January 12, 2018. 2. P
Summary: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF Re: Dkt. No. 131. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court, having considered all the papers filed by the parties in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief (Dkt. No. 131), hereby ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' request for a one-week extension to file their reply in support of their motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. They must file their reply no later than January 12, 2018. 2. Pl..
More
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
Re: Dkt. No. 131.
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
The Court, having considered all the papers filed by the parties in connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief (Dkt. No. 131), hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' request for a one-week extension to file their reply in support of their motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. They must file their reply no later than January 12, 2018.
2. Plaintiffs' request for a 10-page extension of the 15-page limit for their reply in support of their motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. Their reply must not exceed 25 pages.
3. Defendants' request to file a sur-reply to plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs are reminded that any new evidence submitted on reply must be responsive to points raised by defendants in their opposition. See Sanchez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, No. CV-10-09384 MMM (OPx), 2014 WL 12734756, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2014) ("The court can properly consider evidence and argument offered in reply that is responsive to points raised in the non-moving party's opposition. . . .") To the extent plaintiffs submit new evidence on reply, defendants may file corresponding objections pursuant to L.R. 7-3(d)(1), and the Court may rule on the evidence accordingly.
4. Defendants' request to continue the hearing date on plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. The hearing is CONTINUED to Tuesday, February 6, 2018 on the Court's 2:00 p.m. calendar, in the Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Courtroom 1.
This Order terminates Docket Number 131.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
