Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04051/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04051-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CROSLEY ET AL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 CITY OF PITTSBURG ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-04051 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

CONSIDER PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to consider their motion for

partial summary judgment, which moves for summary judgment on the basis that the

Defendants violated Plaintiff Doris Crosley’s Fourth Amendment rights by making a

warrantless entry into her home. Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’

administrative motion within the time period required under the Northern District Civil Local

Rules, and the motion is ripe for decision.

The Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiffs’ administrative motion. In addition,

although the Northern District Civil Local Rules contemplate continuing a hearing when a

motion for summary judgment has not been filed with the requisite 35 day notice, Plaintiffs

raised the issue that is the subject of their partial motion in their opposition to Defendants’

motion. Further, Defendants respond to that argument in their reply brief. The Court thus

believes it is appropriate to address Plaintiffs’ cross-motion in connection with Defendants’

motion.

Therefore, the HEARING on Defendants’ motion is CONTINUED to August 31, 2007

at 9:00 a.m. The Court will hear Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on that date

Case 3:05-cv-04051-JSW Document 71 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

as well, and if Defendants wishes to present any further argument or evidence in opposition to

the motion, they shall do so by no later than August 10, 2007. Because Plaintiffs’ motion

presents a discrete legal issue, any supplemental brief from Defendants shall not exceed eight

pages. Plaintiffs’ reply brief shall be due by no later than August 17, 2007, and also shall not

exceed eight pages.

If the parties wish to modify the hearing date or briefing schedule, they must submit

either a stipulation and proposed order showing good cause to do so, or an administrative

request to alter the schedule, again showing good cause to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04051-JSW Document 71 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 2