Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03203/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03203-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

PRUDENCE CHOU et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JOAN CHOW et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-05-3203 MMC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

RESCHEDULE HEARING; VACATING

HEARING ON DEFENDANT JOAN

CHOW’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND

FOR SANCTIONS; CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Before the Court is plaintiff Prudence Chou’s motion, filed January 30, 2006, to

reschedule the hearing on defendant Joan Chow’s motion to dismiss and motion for

sanctions, currently scheduled to be heard February 24, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff argues

that “[i]t is impossible for her to be at court in the early morning [by] 9:00 a.m. (particularly

having traffic jam),” and requests that the Court continue the hearing to a time no earlier

than 10:30 a.m.

The Court hears civil motions on Friday mornings at 9:00 a.m. Contrary to plaintiff’s

assertion, it is not “impossible” for persons residing in Sonoma County to appear in court in

San Francisco by 9:00 a.m. Consequently, having chosen to file suit in this district, plaintiff

must be prepared to comply with the Court’s schedule. 

Nevertheless, the Court, having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the above-referenced motions, has determined that the motions are suitable

for decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and, accordingly, hereby

Case 3:05-cv-03203-MMC Document 46 Filed 02/06/06 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

VACATES the February 24, 2006 hearing. The Court will take the motions under

submission as of February 10, 2006, the date defendant’s replies are due, and will rule on

the motions without a hearing. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to reschedule the hearing on

defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions is hereby DENIED as moot.

In light of the pending motions, and plaintiff’s failure to date to serve defendant

People’s Republic of China, the Court hereby CONTINUES the Case Management

Conference from February 24, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. to March 31, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03203-MMC Document 46 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2