Patel v. California Department of Public Health and Department of Toxic Substances, 2:15-cv-02471-KJN. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180215974
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is plaintiff's ex parte application to continue hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Defendants opposed the application. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support. (ECF No. 54.) On February 7, 2018, the court took this matter under submission. (ECF No. 52.) After carefully considering the written briefing and the applicable law, the court GRANTS plaintiff's
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is plaintiff's ex parte application to continue hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Defendants opposed the application. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support. (ECF No. 54.) On February 7, 2018, the court took this matter under submission. (ECF No. 52.) After carefully considering the written briefing and the applicable law, the court GRANTS plaintiff's e..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court is plaintiff's ex parte application to continue hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 51.) Defendants opposed the application. (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration in support. (ECF No. 54.) On February 7, 2018, the court took this matter under submission. (ECF No. 52.) After carefully considering the written briefing and the applicable law, the court GRANTS plaintiff's ex parte application.
Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated good cause for continuing the hearing because plaintiff's counsel does not have adequate time to respond to the motion for summary judgment (see ECF Nos. 51, 54), and because granting this extension will not significantly affect the pretrial scheduling order. (See ECF No. 25.) Indeed, the only necessary change to the scheduling order is hearing defendants' motion after the March 1, 2018 deadline for law and motion. The deadline for law and motion is not otherwise adjusted, and the final pretrial conference and the trial dates remain unchanged.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED.
2. The hearing on defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 48) is continued to Thursday, May 3, 2018, at 10:00 am.
3. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed on or before April 19, 2018.
4. Defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed on or before April 26, 2018.
5. The pretrial scheduling order (ECF No. 25) is not otherwise adjusted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
