Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04300/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04300-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

JEROME BEARDEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 06-4300 PJH

v. ORDER CONTINUING

HEARING DATE

THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff Jerome Bearden’s and plaintiff Barry Bradley’s request for

a continuance of both the hearing date on defendant County of San Mateo’s pending

motion for summary judgment, and the deadlines for the filing of a corresponding

opposition and reply. As grounds for their request – which is supported by declarations of

plaintiffs’ counsel (as well as that of the remaining unrepresented named plaintiff) –

plaintiffs point to the fact that plaintiffs’ counsel did not file a notice of appearance until

February 20, 2008 and that prior to that, plaintiffs were unable to effectively engage in

litigation, or to secure representation, despite numerous efforts to do so. Accordingly,

plaintiffs seek to “assemble and submit further substantial and meritorious documentary

evidence and compelling arguments on their behalf.” 

Defendant opposes plaintiffs’ request for a continuance. It contends that plaintiffs’

request lacks good cause and that notwithstanding the recently filed Notice of Appearance

by plaintiffs’ counsel, Michael Tonsing, counsel has had actual notice of defendant’s

pending motion since its inception, since counsel had effectively been working on the case

for approximately five months prior to that. 

Defendant’s opposition raises legitimate grounds for denial of the request for

Case 4:06-cv-04300-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/28/08 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

continuance, and normally, the court’s inclination would be to go forward with the motion as

currently scheduled, on March 12. However, plaintiffs’ counsel has also notified the court

that he is out of the country until March 15, 2008 – a date which would prevent the court

from hearing plaintiffs’ opposition arguments (via his represented counsel) at all, were the

court to go forward on March 12. As such, and in order for the court to hear both parties

with respect to defendant’s pending motion, the court will allow plaintiffs to continue the

hearing date on the motion, albeit grudgingly. 

The request for a continuance is therefore GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment is hereby CONTINUED to April 16, 2008. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief is

due no later than March 26, 2008. Defendants’ reply brief is due no later than April 2,

2008. 

No further continuances will be granted. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04300-PJH Document 33 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2