Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06448/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06448-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. PRUTSMAN,

Plaintiff, No. C 12-6448 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION AND SETTING SCHEDULE

RUST CONSULTING, INC., et al., FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s administrative motion requesting the court to set

deadlines for the opposition and reply for defendants’ motion to dismiss/stay based on

defendants’ alleged “failure to provide proper notice” of their motion. Plaintiff argues that

defendants’ e-filing and electronic service of their motion at 6:09pm on Friday, December

21, 2012 were “invalid,” because they occurred “after the office of plaintiff's counsel closed

for the holidays.” 

Plaintiff provides no support for the argument that a motion filed, served, and noticed

after the closure of opposing counsel’s office should be treated as invalid. Instead, plaintiff

cites only to Civil Local Rule 7-2, which requires all motions to be filed, served, and noticed

for hearing “not less than 35 days after service of the motion.” The rule does not contain

any requirement that motions be filed and served before close of business. In fact, Civil

Local Rule 5-1(e)(4) expressly states that “all electronic transmissions of documents must

be completed . . . prior to midnight in order to be considered timely filed that day.” 

Accordingly, defendants did properly file and serve their motion on December 21, 2012, 

and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

However, given the parties’ confusion regarding the local rules, and given the court’s

unavailability to hear defendants’ motion on the original noticed hearing date, the court will

Case 4:12-cv-06448-PJH Document 20 Filed 01/04/13 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

extend the briefing schedule in this instance. To avoid any such confusion in the future, the

parties are advised to familiarize themselves with the local rules regarding motions, briefing

schedules, and filing deadlines. Plaintiff's opposition will be due on January 10, 2013, and

defendants’ reply will be due on January 17, 2013. Defendants’ motion to dismiss/stay is

set for hearing on February 27, 2013 at 9:00am. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-06448-PJH Document 20 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2