Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04040/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04040-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BROADWAY GRILL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISA INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04040-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

CHANGE TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 10

Before the court is plaintiff Broadway Grill, Inc.’s motion to change time under 

Local Rule 6-3. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff’s motion seeks to shorten the time for briefing and 

hearing on its motion to remand, which is noticed for hearing on August 31. See Dkt. 9. 

Having reviewed the papers and carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the court 

hereby DENIES the motion to change time, for the following reasons.

Under Local Rule 6-3, a party must identify “substantial harm or prejudice that 

would occur” if the court does not grant the motion. Here, the only prejudice identified by 

plaintiff is that, before July 28, it must provide a notice of opposition to a conditional 

transfer order (“CTO”) entered by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPMDL”). 

Plaintiff fears that, by the time its motion to remand is heard by this court, it will be “too 

late” if the JPMDL acts on the pending motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District 

of New York. Mot. at 4.

Plaintiff has not identified substantial prejudice to justify shortening the briefing and 

hearing schedule. Plaintiff is only required to file a short notice of opposition to the CTO 

on July 28; its substantive brief is not due until 14 days thereafter. See Rules of 

Procedure for the JPMDL 7.1(c), (f). Plaintiff does not describe any reason that the 

Case 4:16-cv-04040-PJH Document 14 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion to remand must be heard before the JPMDL acts. In any event, there is no 

substantial risk that this will actually occur, as the JPDML has not yet set a briefing 

schedule and appears likely to not hear the matter until September. See Decl. of Sharon 

Mayo, Dkt. 12 ¶¶ 8-10. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to change time is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-04040-PJH Document 14 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2