Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06478/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06478-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALVARO MARTINEZ, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6478 LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A

vs. CONTINUANCE 

WAWONA FROZEN FOODS, et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

On May 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order continuing the motions

currently set before this Court for May 20, 2005: 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for new trial and reconsideration of summary judgment motion (Doc.

50);

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment, Rule 59(a) (Doc. 51);

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to compel depositions of Robert and William Smittcamp, extend time

to decide new trial motion, motion to perpetuate testimony, Rule 59 and Rule 6 (Doc.56);

(4) Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 58); and

(5) Defendant’s motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Doc. 60).

Plaintiff requests a continuance of plaintiff’s motions so that his counsel will have time to file reply

briefs to defendant’s oppositions. He also requests a continuance of Defendant’s Motion for Rule 11

Sanctions.

Case 1:03-cv-06478-NEW Document 64 Filed 05/16/05 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

Having considered the moving papers, as well as the Court’s file, the Court issues the following

order on the ex parte application.

The request for continuance is DENIED as to the motions for:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for new trial and reconsideration of summary judgment motion (Doc.

50)

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment, Rule 59(a) (Doc. 51)

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion to compel depositions of Robert and William Smittcamp, extend time

to decide new trial motion, motion to perpetuate testimony, Rule 59 and Rule 6. (Doc.56)

(4) Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s Bill of Costs (Doc. 58). 

Plaintiff does not have a right to file a reply brief. Plaintiff will have an opportunity to respond to

defendant’s oppositions at oral argument on May 20, 2005.

The request for continuance is GRANTED as to defendant’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. The

motion is continued from May 20, 2005 to June 17, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 6. The continuance

is based on the lack of proper notice of the motion pursuant to Rule 11. In addition, the Court does not

find prejudice from the continuance in that the relief requested is monetary relief and will not change

because of the new date for argument and submission.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06478-NEW Document 64 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2