Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06525/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06525-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHONGYEE LENGNOU XIONG, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of the )

U.S. Department of )

Agriculture, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

1: 02-CV-6525-SMS

ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO INFORM THE

COURT OF ITS POSITION REGARDING

CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF’S LATE

OPPOSITION (DOCS. 30-33)

Due Date for Input from

Defendant: August 19, 2005

Plaintiff is proceeding with a civil action in this Court. 

The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for all

proceedings, including the entry of final judgment, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), and Local Rule 73-301.

On August 4, 2005, one day before the hearing on Defendant’s

motion for summary judgment, and after the Defendant had already

filed a reply, Plaintiff filed opposition to the motion,

including a memorandum of points and authorities, a separate

statement, and declarations. The opposition was not timely filed.

In a declaration regarding late filing, Plaintiff’s counsel set

forth an explanation for the late filing and requested in the

body of the declaration that the hearing be continued to allow

Case 1:02-cv-06525-SMS Document 35 Filed 08/09/05 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

Defendant time to reply and for the Court to consider the matter

on its merits.

Due to the unanticipated unavailability of the Court, the

hearing on the motion was continued on August 5, 2005, the

morning of the hearing, to September 9, 2005. The Court has

suspended substantial resources considering the motion in the

posture in which it stood before the filing of the untimely

opposition. The Court has not determined whether or not it will

consider Plaintiff’s untimely opposition and permit Plaintiff to

be heard, either on paper or at any hearing, on the merits in

connection with the motion for summary judgment. If the Court

does ultimately determine to consider Plaintiff’s untimely

opposition, Defendant will be given adequate time to prepare and

file a reply to the opposition.

However, before determining whether to consider the late

opposition, the Court desires to know the position of Defendant

with respect to whether the Plaintiff’s untimely opposition

should be considered.

Accordingly, it IS ORDERED that no later than August 19,

2005, Defendant MAY FILE input regarding its position on this

matter, including but not limited to a declaration and/or points

and authorities.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06525-SMS Document 35 Filed 08/09/05 Page 2 of 2