Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00432/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00432-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN PEACOCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

FRANK WILLIS; RUTH WILLIS; )

 WW BOER GOATS, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0432 AWI LJO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE REQUEST FOR MORE

TIME TO FILE AN OPPOSITION

AND TO CONTINUE THE

HEARING DATE

ORDER MOVING HEARING DATE

OF JULY 31, 2006 TO SEPTEMBER

18, 2006

(Document #17)

Defendants’ motions to dismiss or transfer are pending in this action and are set for

hearing on July 31, 2006. On July 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed an ex parte request for a 45 days

extension to file an opposition to Defendants’ motions and to continue the hearing date. 

Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is

required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause

shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order

the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period

originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made

after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the

failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time

for taking any action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and

60(b), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b). In his motion, Plaintiff shows good cause for the continuance. Given

Plaintiff’s attorney’s other cases, Plaintiff’s attorney is not being unreasonable in stating he has

Case 1:06-cv-00432-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 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

27

28 2

not had time to file an opposition and will need an additional 45 days. Given Plaintiff’s

attorney’s schedule, the court finds it would prejudice Plaintiff to require his attorney to file an

opposition under the current briefing schedule. Thus, the court will grant the continuance.

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Plaintiff’s ex-parte request for an extension of time to file an opposition and to

continue the hearing date is GRANTED;

2. The previously set hearing date of July 31, 2006, is VACATED, and the parties

shall not appear at that time; 

3. Plaintiff’s opposition to the pending motions shall be filed by 11:00 a.m. on

September 5, 2006;

4. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be filed by 11:00 a.m. on September 12, 2006; and

5. The hearing on Defendants’ pending motions is set for September 18, 2006 at

1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00432-AWI-LJO Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2