Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02075/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02075-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER CONTINUING ALL DATES THIRTY-FIVE (35) DAYS

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 6/8/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID JAMES HOLSINGER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 CONTINUING ALL DATES

THIRTY-FIVE (35) DAYS

Cross-motions for summary judgment in the instant action presently are set for hearing on

June 16, 2006, and the trial is scheduled to begin on July 21, 2006. On May 23, 2006, Magistrate

Judge Trumbull issued an Order granting Plaintiff relief from the discovery cutoff in order to

take two depositions. On June 5, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to continue the trial date. On the

same date, Plaintiff also filed a reply to Defendants’ opposition to one of Plaintiff’s motions for

summary judgment in which Plaintiff requested, as an alternative to summary judgment, that the

Court continue the cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f). Plaintiff’s counsel represents “that the scope and scheduling of [the two

Case 5:05-cv-02075-JF Document 80 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s request to continue the cross-motions for summary

judgment was not made pursuant to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) motion. However, in

light of the additional discovery that has been authorized by Magistrate Judge Trumbull’s Order,

the Court will continue the hearing date for the cross-motions for summary judgment on its own

motion.

2

Case No. C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER CONTINUING ALL DATES THIRTY-FIVE (35) DAYS

(JFLC1)

additional] depositions will create additional litigation before Judge Trumbull and will, therefore,

likely not be completed until the end of July, 2006.” Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion to

continue the trial date on the ground that Plaintiff has delayed the instant litigation by failing to

request the depositions prior to the close of discovery and delaying the scheduling of the

depositions after Magistrate Judge Trumbull’s May 23, 2006 Order.

Considering that Plaintiff has been granted leave to conduct only two depositions, and in

view of the length of time the instant case has been pending, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s

motion, while well-taken, asks too much.2 At most, there is good cause to continue the dates

thirty-five (35) days. Accordingly, the presently scheduled dates shall be vacated. The crossmotions will be scheduled for hearing on July 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., and the trial will be

scheduled to begin on August 25, 2006 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 8, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02075-JF Document 80 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. C 05-02075 JF (PVT)

ORDER CONTINUING ALL DATES THIRTY-FIVE (35) DAYS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Tomio B. Narita tnarita@wsnlaw.com,

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

Jeffrey A. Topor jtopor@wsnlaw.com 

Case 5:05-cv-02075-JF Document 80 Filed 06/08/06 Page 3 of 3