Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00001/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00001-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E.K. WADE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELAINE CHAO, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 08-00001 JSW

ORDER RE PENDING MOTIONS 

On February 15, 2008, this case was reassigned to this Court. On February 25, 2008,

pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court Ordered that this matter was to be consolidated

with Wade v. Chao, et al., 08-CV-00021-JSW. (Docket No. 23.) In that Order, the Court

ordered that these two matters were to be consolidated under one case number, specifically 08-

00001-JSW. The parties also agreed that all matters were to be filed under that case number. 

Plaintiff, however, continues to file pleadings in case 08-CV-00021-JSW. Accordingly, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that all parties shall file their pleadings only only in case 08-CV-00001-

JSW. In the event the Clerk receives documents filed in case 08-CV-00021-JSW, those

pleadings shall be filed in case 08-CV-00001-JSW.

The Court also previously approved the parties’ stipulation to extend the time in which

the Defendants would be required to file a responsive pleading to Plaintiffs’ complaints. On

March 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Amended Verified Complaint in case 08-00001-JSW. (Docket

No. 28.) On March 19, 2008, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was noticed for

hearing on April 25, 2008. (Docket No. 37.) 

Case 3:08-cv-00001-EDL Document 51 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 4
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

In that motion, Defendants move to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed on

March 5, 2008 in case 08-00001-JSW in its entirety, and also move to dismiss the Seventh and

Eighth Causes of Action in the Complaint filed on January 3, 2008 in case 08-00021-JSW. 

On March 20, 2008, the Court issued a briefing schedule, in which it required Plaintiff

to file his opposition to Defendant’s motion by April 4, 2008, and required Defendants to file a

reply brief on April 11, 2008. The Court also continued the hearing to May 9, 2008. (Docket

No. 39.) On March 28, 2008, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

(Docket No. 40.) That motion remains on calendar.

Thereafter, on April 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the

alternative, summary adjudication, in case 08-00021-JSW, and noticed it for hearing on May 9,

2008. On April 2, 2008, Defendants filed an Ex Parte Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f), in which they ask the Court to strike Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

in case 08-CV-00021, on the ground that it is premature and that they will require discovery to

meet the motion. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The Court, however, finds good cause to

GRANT Defendant’s request and shall deny the motion without prejudice to renewal at a later

date. The Court notes that although it normally permits one summary judgment motion per

party, the Court shall not count what it considers to be a premature motion against Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to terminate docket number 47 in case 08-CV-00001-JSW

and docket number 26 in case 08-CV-00021-JSW.

On April 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a request for default in case 08-CV-00021, in which he

requests that a default be entered against the Defendants because they moved to dismiss only

the seventh and eighth claims for relief. Defendants oppose this request. Defendants

opposition is well founded. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to

deny Plaintiff’s request for default in case 08-CV-00021. (See Docket No. 32.)

Finally, in his opposition to the Defendant’s ex parte motion to deny the motion for

summary judgment, Plaintiff refers to Defendants’ allegedly “trifling, lazy-assed ways of

conducting business.” The Court expects all parties in this matter to conduct themselves with

Case 3:08-cv-00001-EDL Document 51 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 4
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

the utmost civility. The Court will not tolerate either party casting aspersions on one another

and shall strike any briefs that contain such language in the future.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00001-EDL Document 51 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 4
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

E.K. WADE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ELAINE CHAO et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV08-00001 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 15, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter

listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an

inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

E. K. Wade

542 North Civic Drive, Apt. D

Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Dated: April 15, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-00001-EDL Document 51 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 4