Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00689-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HECTOR O. ESCALANTE, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 )

CITY OF DELANO, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

____________________________________ )

CV F 05CV0689 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME.

Doc. # 40

In this civil rights action, defendants City of Delano, et al. (“Defendants”) have

requested an extension of time to file their opposition to plaintiff Hector O. Escalante’s

(“Plaintiff’s”) motion for summary judgment. Counsel for Defendants states the extension

of time is necessary because of the volume of material contained in Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment and because of Defendant counsel’s unavailability during the time from

November 20, 2006, through November 26, 2006.

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request on the grounds the request is not timely and it

fails to state facts sufficient to support the request. Plaintiff also claims he will be prejudiced

by any grant of extension of time. 

The magistrate judge’s scheduling order of November 11, 2005, set the date for

hearing on dispositive motions not later than December 4, 2006. Plaintiff’s notice of motion

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 43 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 3
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

for summary judgment initially listed November 27, 2006 as the hearing date, but the motion

was re-noticed ten days later for a hearing date of December 11, 2006. A second re-notice

was filed the following day setting the hearing date for December 4, 2006. Plaintiff correctly

contends that Defendants’ request for extension of time was due not later than November 17,

2006. Defendants filed a request for extension of time on that date, but the document filed

failed to properly identify the correct event. As a result, Defendants refiled their request for

extension of time on November 22, 2006. Plaintiff, in his opposition to the extension of

time, admits that he was notified of Plaintiff’s intent to file for an extension of time on

October 26, 2006.

The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the documents

filed in support of that motion. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is factually intense,

and is supported by nearly 200 pages of documents. Based on the factual intensity of

Plaintiff’s motion and on the number of factual allegations involved, it is reasonable that

additional time would be necessary to marshal documentation of facts in opposition. The

court finds Defendants’ request for extension of time to prepare their opposition is

reasonable. 

Plaintiff admits he had actual notice of Defendants’ intent to file for an extension of

time. Plaintiff’s claim of prejudice is based, as far as the court can discern, on Plaintiff’s

contention that should the court deny the request for extension, Plaintiff’s submitted material

facts will be unopposed, and Plaintiff will be entitled to partial or complete summary

judgment, thereby obviating the need for much of the anticipated pretrial work. The court

finds the exclusion of Defendants’ opposition would prejudice both the court and Defendants

to a far greater extent than any possible prejudice to Plaintiff if Defendant is allowed the

additional time to prepare and file an opposition. The court has no interest in the

adjudication of claims on an incomplete set of facts, and Defendants should not be subject to

the loss or impairment of their defense simply because their attorney executed a pro forma

request incorrectly.

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 43 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ request for a twoweek extension of time to file their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

hereby GRANTED. The magistrate judges scheduling order is hereby MODIFIED as

follows: Defendants’ opposition shall be filed and served not later than December 4, 2006. 

Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed and served not later than December 11, 2006. Hearing on

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shall be held December 18, 2006, at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00689-LJO-DLB Document 43 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 3