Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06527/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06527-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCIO ADAME ARAUJO DE )

AGUILAR, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER )

CORPORATION, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-02-6527 REC/LJO

ORDER CONTINUING ORAL

ARGUMENT ON MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Upon due consideration of plaintiffs’ request for

continuance of the hearing date of motions for summary judgment

and defendants’ respective oppositions thereto, the court will

continue the hearing date of the motions for summary judgment.

Therefore, oral argument on the County of Kern’s motion for

summary judgment is continued from August 1, 2005 to Monday,

September 19, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. Oral argument on Shafter-Wasco

Ginning Company’s motion for summary judgment is continued from

August 15, 2005 to Monday, September 19, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. 

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 140 Filed 07/27/05 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

1Plaintiffs are advised that failure to timely comply with

this order will result in the granting of the respective motion for

summary judgment to which the opposition was due. No further

continuances of the hearing date will be granted except on request

of the moving party.

2

Plaintiffs’ oppositions shall be filed by Monday, August 29,

2005.1 Defendants’ replies, if any, shall be filed by Monday,

September 12, 2005.

Counsel for the County of Kern asserts that continuance of

its motion for summary judgment may cause it to incur deposition

expenses that would not have been necessary if the motion had

been heard on the noticed date and resolved in favor of the

County of Kern. The County requests that, should such deposition

expenses have to be incurred because of the continuance, those

expenses be paid by counsel for the opposing plaintiffs. The

court expects that the parties will meet and confer to continue

the dates for the depositions until after the hearing on the

motions for summary judgment. However, because the court cannot

guarantee when rulings on the motions will issue and because

trial is set to commence on November 1, 2005, if these

depositions must proceed in order to be prepared for trial, the

expenses of these depositions shall be paid by plaintiffs

attorneys.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 140 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 2