STORMWATER SYSTEMS, INC. v. REITMEYER, 2:14-cv-02472. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150122914
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. Currently before the Court is Defendant Douglas Reitmeyer's ("Defendant") Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Motion Re Substitution of Counsel and Motion to Continue the Preliminary Injunction ("Application"), ECF No. 36. After considering the Application and Plaintiffs' Opposition, ECF No. 37, the Court finds there is not good cause to grant Defendant's requests. Even on an abbreviated schedule, the Court would be unable to
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge. Currently before the Court is Defendant Douglas Reitmeyer's ("Defendant") Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Motion Re Substitution of Counsel and Motion to Continue the Preliminary Injunction ("Application"), ECF No. 36. After considering the Application and Plaintiffs' Opposition, ECF No. 37, the Court finds there is not good cause to grant Defendant's requests. Even on an abbreviated schedule, the Court would be unable to ..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Douglas Reitmeyer's ("Defendant") Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time for Motion Re Substitution of Counsel and Motion to Continue the Preliminary Injunction ("Application"), ECF No. 36. After considering the Application and Plaintiffs' Opposition, ECF No. 37, the Court finds there is not good cause to grant Defendant's requests. Even on an abbreviated schedule, the Court would be unable to resolve the proposed motions prior to the deadline for Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 34. Due to the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs, the Court is unwilling to alter the briefing hearing dates on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Accordingly, Defendant's Application, ECF No. 36, is DENIED.
Defendant is advised that if he seeks to substitute counsel, he must file a motion that complies with Local Rule 182(d).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
