Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04086-46/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PIOTR J. GARDIAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-04086 HRL

Consolidated With: C04-04768 HRL

C05-01242 HRL

C05-01833 HRL

C06-04695 HRL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO EXTEND

TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION TO

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

[Re: Docket Nos. 326, 327]

On April 1, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a two-week extension of time to file

his opposition to defendant’s summary judgment motion. Then, on April 8, 2008, he filed a

second motion seeking a three-week extension to file his opposition papers. Defendant opposes

the motions. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, the court orders as

follows:

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for any extension. He was given notice of the

current summary judgment briefing deadlines and hearing date months ago. He was served

with defendant’s motion one month ago; and, he has had more than ample time to prepare his

opposition. Indeed, in consideration of plaintiff's pro se status and the numerosity of the

*E-FILED ON 4/10/2008*

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 331 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Plaintiff also sought extensions of time with respect to defendant’s prior

summary judgment motion. Ultimately, the hearing on defendant’s motion was vacated, and

briefing was suspended, in order to allow time for defendant to complete plaintiff’s

deposition. A new briefing and hearing schedule was set when defendant indicated that it

intended to re-notice and supplement its original motion to include evidence from plaintiff’s

deposition testimony. (See Docket No. 322).

2

claims being asserted in this consolidated action, the court set a briefing schedule that gives him

considerably more time to prepare his opposition papers than he would have on a normal

briefing schedule under Civil Local Rule 7. Moreover, defendant’s pending summary judgment

motion appears to be substantially similar to the one it filed and served in September 2007.1

 At

the same time, however, the court does not find that defendant will be seriously prejudiced by a

brief continuance of the remaining briefing deadlines and hearing date. Accordingly, IT IS

ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff shall have until April 22, 2008 in which to file his opposition to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is reminded that he shall not file his

opposition papers in piecemeal fashion. Instead, he must file and serve all of his opposition

papers (including any witness declarations, his own declaration, and any other documents he

chooses to submit in support of his opposition) at one time by the April 22, 2008 deadline.

Plaintiff is further advised that this extension is final. No further extensions will be

granted.

2. Defendant’s reply is due by May 6, 2008.

3. The hearing on defendant’s summary judgment motion is continued to May 20,

2008, 10:00 a.m.

Dated: ________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

April 10, 2008

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 331 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

A copy of this document will be mailed to:

Piotr J. Gardias 

72 Floyd Street

San Jose, CA 95110 

Plaintiff (Pro Se)

Notice has been electronically mailed to: 

Mary Susan Cain-Simon Mary.CainSimon@doj.ca.gov, David.Moss@doj.ca.gov 

Fiel D. Tigno fiel.tigno@doj.ca.gov 

Case 5:04-cv-04086-HRL Document 331 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 3