PEREZ v. MONSTER INC., 15-cv-03885-EMC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160711a66
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME Docket No. 84. EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Defendants have asked the Court to hear their motion to stay proceedings on shortened time. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' request for relief. Defendants have failed to establish "substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time." Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(3). In addition, althou
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME Docket No. 84. EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Defendants have asked the Court to hear their motion to stay proceedings on shortened time. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' request for relief. Defendants have failed to establish "substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time." Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(3). In addition, althoug..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
Docket No. 84.
EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.
Defendants have asked the Court to hear their motion to stay proceedings on shortened time. Having considered the parties' briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants' request for relief. Defendants have failed to establish "substantial harm or prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time." Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)(3). In addition, although there may be a settlement in principle in the Illinois state proceedings, the Court cannot assess whether there should be a stay in the instant case until the settlement terms are finalized and, accordingly, shortened time is premature as well. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have raised at least a prima facie case that even a settlement in the Illinois state proceedings will not necessarily dispose of the instant action (i.e., there is not complete overlap between the instant action and the Illinois case).
Although, under the Civil Local Rules, Defendants' motion to stay would ordinarily be heard on August 11, 2016, the undersigned is not available on that day. Accordingly, the motion to stay is hereby scheduled for August 18, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The briefing schedule remains unchanged.
This order disposes of Docket No. 84.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
