Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02980/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02980-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PAUL SIMS, individually, an don behalf

of all others similarly situated.

Plaintiff,

 v.

 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-02980 TEH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO RE-SET

HEARING DATE AND BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

On August 24, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion for Administrative Relief to re-set

hearing date and briefing schedule and Plaintiff has filed an opposition thereto. Having

carefully considered the parties’ papers, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion as

set forth below.

First, the Court concludes that Mr. Parlo’s conflict is primarily self-inflicted. According

to the declaration of Rebecca Eisen, Mr. Parlo’s client asked him to serve as trial counsel in the

Cyrus case 2 1⁄2 weeks prior to filing the instant request. See Eisen Decl. ¶ 7. Just a few days

later (2 weeks prior to filing the instant request) Judge Wexler confirmed that the Cyrus case

would proceed to trial on August 28, 2006. Id. at ¶ 5. Mr. Parlo was not yet named on the

Joint Pretrial Order as trial counsel. See Mot. at 3 (Mr. Parlo was not added to Joint Pre-Trial

Order until August 21, 2006). Given the above timing of events, Mr. Parlo’s decision to

proceed with the Cyrus case despite knowledge of the new trial date and the conflict it

presented with the previously established schedule in this case, does not justify the three-week

extension requested by Defendant. The Court, however, will, extend the briefing schedule by

one week as a minor accommodation given that Plaintiff has not identified any specific conflict

or prejudice that would result from such an extension. 

Case 3:05-cv-02980-TEH Document 89 Filed 08/28/06 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

Second, the Court has also concluded, independently of the instant motion, that the

current schedule, which only provides for five working days between the reply briefs and oral

argument, is inadequate to permit the Court sufficient time to prepare for argument on the

parties’ three motions. Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing date as well.

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the July 6, 2006

briefing schedule is modified as set forth below:

1. Opposition to Motions for Summary Judgment and Class Certification shall be filed

no later than September 8, 2006.

2. Reply briefs shall be filed no later than September 22, 2006. 

3. Hearing on said motions shall be continued until October 16, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02980-TEH Document 89 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 2