Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04258/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04258-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

___________________________________________________________________________________

- 1 - 

USDC-ND, CASE NO. 14-cv-04258-YGR. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO LATE FILING OF MPSJ 

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

Joan Herrington, SBN 178988 

Bay Area Employment Law Office 

5032 Woodminster Lane 

Oakland, CA 94602-2614 

(510) 530-4303 phone 

(510) 530-4725 fax 

jh@baelo.com 

Steven L. Derby, SBN 148372 

Derby Law Firm 

1255 Treat Blvd, Suite 300 

Walnut Creek, CA 94597 

(925) 472-6640 phone 

(925) 472-6643 fax 

derbylaw@att.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CAROL FURTADO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was due to be filed by midnight on Friday, 

September 25, 2015. Plaintiff filed her motion at 1:25 a.m. on Monday, September 28, 2015. 

The motion was filed late because Plaintiff’s counsel fell and sustained a concussion, diagnosed 

on September 21, 2015. As a result, Plaintiff’s counsel had difficulty with fatigue, concentration, and 

limited vision (black, swollen left eye and double vision in the right eye). Defense counsel Alexa 

CAROL FURTADO,

PLAINTIFF,

v.

UNITED RENTALS, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation; RSC EQUIPMENT RENTALS, 

INC., an Arizona Corporation; severally and as 

joint employers; and DOES 1 through 50, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04258-YGR

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS 

TO UNTIMELY MOTION FOR PARTIAL 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Date: November 17, 2015

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor

COMPLAINT FILED: Feb. 10, 2014

TRIAL DATE: Sept. 26, 2016.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

Case 5:14-cv-04258-NC Document 77 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 3
___________________________________________________________________________________

- 2 - 

USDC-ND, CASE NO. 14-cv-04258-YGR. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO LATE FILING OF MPSJ 

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

Woerner can corroborate Plaintiff’s goose-egg and black eye, because they were embarrassingly obvious 

when Plaintiff’s counsel defended Plaintiff’s deposition on September 18, 2015. Despite her injuries, 

Plaintiff’s counsel still thought she could meet the September 25, 2015 filing deadline. She did not take 

into account the effect of her injuries on her ability to do quality work. 

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel with a proposed stipulation designed to impose an 

appropriate sanction on Plaintiff and to avoid prejudice to both defendants and the court. Instead of 

striking the late filed pleading, which would cause extreme prejudice to Plaintiff, she proposed a 

modification of the briefing schedule to deduct two (or three) days from Plaintiff’s time and use it to 

enlarge Defendants’ time. Accordingly, the motion schedule would be modified as follows: 

Defendants’ Opposition to Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment deadline changed 

from 10/9/15 to 10/12/15. 

Plaintiff’s Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion deadline changed from 10/23/15 to 10/20/15. 

Defendants’ Reply in support of Cross-Motion remains the same at 10/30/15. 

Hearing on Motions remains the same at 11/17/15 at 2:00 p.m. 

Plaintiff believes that Defendants will be unable to raise issues of material fact in opposition to 

her motion for partial summary judgment. If the Court allows Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 

judgment to stand, all the parties and the Court will ultimately benefit through the significant narrowing 

of the issues for trial, pursuant to either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(a) or (56f). Accordingly, 

the Court will be able to conduct trial more efficiently, and the parties will save time, money and effort 

by focusing on the few remaining issues or perhaps the matter can be settled.

Date: September 30, 2015. 

By: ________________/S/______________________ 

Joan Herrington 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

PROPOSED ORDER 

Good cause appearing, the briefing schedule on the parties’ cross-motions for summary 

judgment is modified as follows: 

Defendants’ Opposition to Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment deadline changed 

Case 5:14-cv-04258-NC Document 77 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 3
___________________________________________________________________________________

- 3 - 

USDC-ND, CASE NO. 14-cv-04258-YGR. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO LATE FILING OF MPSJ 

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

from 10/9/15 to 10/12/15. 

Plaintiff’s Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion deadline changed from 10/23/15 to 10/20/15. 

Defendants’ Reply in support of Cross-Motion remains the same at 10/30/15. 

Hearing on Motions remains the same at 11/17/15 at 2:00 p.m. 

DATED: _______________ 

United States District Judge

October 2, 2015

Case 5:14-cv-04258-NC Document 77 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 3