Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01255/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATTHEW FRASER, by his Guardian Ad

Litem JUDITH ANN FRASER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-1255 MMC

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO

UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO MOTION

TO DISMISS; EXTENDING DEADLINE

TO FILE REPLY

Before the Court is defendant’s objection, filed May 8, 2006, to plaintiffs’ untimely

opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was filed April 14, 2006

and noticed for hearing May 19, 2006. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, any opposition

thereto was required to be filed “not less than 21 days before the hearing date,” which in

this instance was April 28, 2006. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a). Plaintiffs filed their opposition one

week late, on May 5, 2006. Defendant argues that the opposition should be stricken as

untimely or, alternatively, that the Court should extend the deadline for defendant to file its

reply.

To date, plaintiffs have submitted no justification for their untimely filing. The Court

expects the parties to familiarize themselves with the requirements of the Local Rules of

Case 3:06-cv-01255-MMC Document 15 Filed 05/09/06 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

this District. Because there is no prejudice to defendant if it is granted additional time to file

a reply, however, the Court will not strike the untimely opposition but, rather, will extend the

deadline for defendant to file its reply.

Accordingly, defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s untimely opposition is hereby

OVERRULED. The deadline for defendant to file its reply is hereby EXTENDED to May 12,

2006. Absent further order of the Court, the motion remains scheduled for hearing on May

19, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01255-MMC Document 15 Filed 05/09/06 Page 2 of 2