Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03658/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03658-8/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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAUL CASAREZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF SAN BENITO and SHERIFF

CURTIS HILL,

Defendants.

 /

No. C04-03658 HRL

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE

LAST DAY TO HEAR DISPOSITIVE

MOTIONS; AND (2) SETTING A

MODIFIED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

[Re: Docket No. 34]

Before the court is defendants’ request to extend the December 6, 2005 deadline for hearing

dispositive motions. Under the current case schedule, any summary judgment motion should have

been filed no later than November 1, 2005. See Civ. L.R. 7-2. On November 8, 2005, defendants

filed the instant request, stating that they were unable to meet the filing deadline because (1) defense

counsel’s administrative staff calendared the hearing deadline, but failed to calendar the deadline for

filing dispositive motions; and (2) defense counsel therefore was not “alerted of the imminent need to

file a summary judgment motion, until it was too late.” Plaintiff has stipulated to the requested

extension.

This court has the power to relieve a party of an expired time limit for performing an act upon

a showing of excusable neglect. FED.R.CIV.P. 6(b). In determining whether a failure was due to

Case 5:04-cv-03658-HRL Document 35 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

“excusable neglect,” courts consider (1) the risk of prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the length of

the delay and its potential impact on the judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay (including

whether it was within the moving party’s control); and (4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in

bad faith. See Pioneer Investment Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507

U.S. 380, 395 (1993).

In the instant case, defendants are essentially seeking an extension of time to file a motion for

summary judgment. The court believes that counsel bears ultimate responsibility for being aware of

pertinent deadlines and ensuring that papers are timely filed. Here, defense counsel was careless. 

Indeed, the December 6, 2005 hearing deadline was set nearly two months ago upon the parties’

stipulated request for an extension.

Nevertheless, there is no indication that defense counsel acted in bad faith, and plaintiff

apparently has no objection to the request. Moreover, the court finds that the current schedule can

accommodate a summary judgment hearing on January 3, 2006 without the need to delay the pretrial

conference or trial. Further, it may be that the motion will streamline the issues to be tried. As such,

the court will extend the last day to hear dispositive motions to January 3, 2006.

However, in light of the holidays immediately preceding the January 3, 2006 hearing date, the

court will modify the normal briefing schedule to require that the parties’ file their papers one week

earlier as follows:

• November 22, 2005: Deadline for filing dispositive motion

• December 6, 2005: Deadline for filing opposition

• December 13, 2005: Deadline for filing reply

• January 3, 2006: Motion hearing

The parties are further advised that this extension will not be considered good cause for any

extensions of the pretrial filing deadlines, the pretrial conference or the trial, which have previously

been continued at the parties’ request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-03658-HRL Document 35 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5:04-cv-3658 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Michael Edward Adams equitist@earthlink.net 

Michael C. Serverian mserverian@rllss.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered

for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:04-cv-03658-HRL Document 35 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 3