Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01179/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-01179-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVID MERRITT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-cv-01179-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; 

DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO 

ADVANCE HEARING

[Re: ECF 182, 185]

Before the Court are the parties’ respective administrative motions concerning the briefing 

schedule and hearing date for Defendants’1recently filed motions to dismiss. Pl.’s Admin. Mot., 

ECF 182; Def.’s Admin. Mot., ECF 185. Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, request an extension of 

time in which to respond, while Defendants request that the Court hear the motions on February 

19, 2015 in lieu of the earlier-filed Motion to Stay State Law Claims set for that date. 

While the Court is sympathetic to their judicial economy arguments, Defendants filed their 

motions to dismiss on January 20, 2015, and hearing the motions on February 19, 2015 would give 

all sides—including the Court—fewer than the minimum 35 days between motion filing and 

hearing contemplated by the Civil Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). In light of Plaintiffs’ pro se 

status, reducing the presumptive schedule set forth in the local rules is unlikely to promote judicial 

efficiency or ensure that the Court benefits from both parties’ best briefing on the merits of the 

pending motions. As such, the Court does not find good cause to deviate from the present hearing 

date of April 30, 2015 on Defendants’ two motions (ECF 176 and 179), and Defendants’ request is 

DENIED.

 

1

Excepting individual defendant John Benson.

Case 5:09-cv-01179-BLF Document 189 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

As the motions to dismiss are to remain set for hearing on April 30, 2015, there is little 

prejudice to granting Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time in which to respond. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Rule 8(a) and 

12 motions (ECF 176 and 179 respectively) is due by February 16, 2015. Plaintiffs’ response to 

Defendant Benson’s separate motion to dismiss (ECF 177) shall be due as set forth in those 

parties’ stipulation filed January 22, 2015. ECF 184.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-01179-BLF Document 189 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2