TIDWELL v. CARRINGTON REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, C 17-00437 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170804968
Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiff Edward Tidwell has filed a request to continue tomorrow's hearing on two motions to dismiss his complaint (Dkt. Nos. 44, 60) to September 7, 2017, "to allow the Parties time to resolve this matter in its entirety" (Dkt. No. 73). Insofar as this submission argues the merits of plaintiff's case and requests "that the District Court order Defendants [ sic ] motions denied" ( id. at 5), it is improper and will
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiff Edward Tidwell has filed a request to continue tomorrow's hearing on two motions to dismiss his complaint (Dkt. Nos. 44, 60) to September 7, 2017, "to allow the Parties time to resolve this matter in its entirety" (Dkt. No. 73). Insofar as this submission argues the merits of plaintiff's case and requests "that the District Court order Defendants [ sic ] motions denied" ( id. at 5), it is improper and will ..
More
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO CONTINUE HEARING
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Plaintiff Edward Tidwell has filed a request to continue tomorrow's hearing on two motions to dismiss his complaint (Dkt. Nos. 44, 60) to September 7, 2017, "to allow the Parties time to resolve this matter in its entirety" (Dkt. No. 73). Insofar as this submission argues the merits of plaintiff's case and requests "that the District Court order Defendants [sic] motions denied" (id. at 5), it is improper and will not be considered. Otherwise, the mere fact that "settlement discussions are in the making" (ibid.) is not reason to delay hearing or decision on defendants' motions. Plaintiff's request to continue tomorrow's hearing is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
