Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-02896/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-02896-1/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

ERNESTO ESPINOZA, et. al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF DALY CITY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 03-2896 SBA

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion

for Summary Judgment ("Objection") filed September 7, 2005. On August 2, 2005, Defendants filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") and an Ex Parte Application to Extend the Dispositive Motion

Hearing date. On August 22, 2005 this Court granted Defendants' Ex Parte Application and scheduled

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment for hearing on September 20, 2005, specifically finding "[t]he

briefing schedule for the dispositive motions, and all other dates not explicitly referenced herein, shall remain

the same." Docket No. 59 at 2. As set forth in this Court's Standing Order and in the Civil Local Rules for

the Northern District of California, the opposition to Defendants' Motion was due by August 30, 2005,

twenty-one (21) days before the noticed hearing date. However, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to

Defendants' Motion a full week late, on September 6, 2005. Plaintiffs neither requested prior leave of this

Court to extend the opposition filing deadline, nor was the opposition accompanied by any such request. 

Consequently, through their Objection, Defendants request this Court strike Plaintiff's opposition as

untimely and not in compliance with federal or local rules, or in the alternative, for guidance as to the time

Case 4:03-cv-02896-SBA Document 76 Filed 09/07/05 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

for filing a reply brief. 

Good cause appearing,

The Defendant's request is DENIED. The Court accepts Plaintiff's Opposition. Defendants shall

file their Reply no later than September 13, 2005.

Plaintiffs should not mistake the Court's willingness to accept their late and untimely opposition as

leave for further noncompliance with the local rules and abuse of this Court's, and the Defendants', time and

resources. Plaintiffs' sloppy motion practice will not be tolerated by the Court in the future. It is Plaintiffs'

duty to read and strictly adhere to the federal local rules and this Court's Standing Order. If, in the future,

Plaintiffs require additional time to respond to a motion, they must first request leave of this Court before

doing so. Otherwise, Plaintiffs risk the imposition of sanctions, or other such penalty that this Court in its

discretion deems applicable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 9-7-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-02896-SBA Document 76 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2