Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-6583 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE REQUESTS TO

CONTINUE HEARING DATE

ORDER MOVING HEARING DATE

OF JULY 25, 2005 TO AUGUST 22,

2005

(Documents # 270 & #271)

Defendant Susan Willms Thurston’s motion for summary judgment and Defendant Redwood

Trust Deed Services motion for summary judgment are pending in this action and are set for oral

argument to be heard on July 25, 2005. On July 7, 2005, Plaintiffs ex parte requests to continue the

hearing date on both motions until August 22, 2005. On July 8, 2005, Defendants filed an opposition

to Plaintiffs’ request.

Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is

required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown

may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order the period

enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally

prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the

expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was

the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time for taking any action

under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and 60(b), except to the extent

and under the conditions stated in them.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b). In their motion, Plaintiffs show good cause for the continuance. Given

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 288 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Plaintiffs’ attorney’s other cases, Plaintiffs’ attorney is not being unreasonable in stating he has not had

time to file an opposition. The court recognizes the arguments made in Defendants’ opposition to

Plaintiffs’ request. Defendants correctly point out that this action has been pending for some time,

discovery has closed, and noticed depositions have not yet taken place. Plaintiffs have indicated some

willingness to dismiss Defendant Susan Willms Thurston from this action, but the parties cannot agree

on language for a stipulated dismissal. Defendants’ arguments are well taken. However, given

Plaintiffs’ attorney schedule, the court agrees it would prejudice Plaintiffs to require their attorney to file

an opposition under the current briefing schedule. Thus, the court will grant this continuance. 

A review of Defendants’ opposition indicates that Defendants intend on filing at least one more

motion for summary judgment in late August. Plaintiffs’ attorney is requested to review his schedule

and make appropriate arrangements to avoid further delays in this action.

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex-parte requests to continue the hearing date are GRANTED;

2. The previously set hearing date of July 25, 2005, is VACATED, and the parties shall not

appear at that time; and

3. Hearing on Defendants’ pending motions for summary judgment is set for August 22, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 288 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2