Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-03587/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-03587-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

NICOLOSI DISTRIBUTING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FINISHMASTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03587-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SET 

A HEARING DATE

[Re: ECF 36]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Nicolosi Distributing, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) administrative 

motion to set a hearing date on its yet-to-be-filed motion to convert its pending preliminary 

injunction motion (ECF 28) into a motion for summary judgment. See ECF 36. Plaintiff moves 

for its motion to convert to be heard on September 20, 2018—the date of the preliminary 

injunction hearing—which essentially amounts to a motion to shorten the time required for notice 

of and briefing on the motion to convert. Plaintiff submits that all briefs and supporting evidence 

filed in regard to the preliminary injunction be deemed the papers for and against partial summary 

judgment. Defendants FinishMaster, Inc. and Uni-Select, Inc. (“Defendants”) oppose this motion 

because it does not comport with the local rules or this Court’s standing order concerning motions, 

and because Plaintiff has not provided sufficient cause for the requested shortening of time.

This Court agrees with Defendants. Civ. L.R. 7-2(a) requires a motion be served and 

noticed for hearing not less than 35 days after the filing of the motion. Moreover, Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) 

gives the opposing party 14 days to draft its opposition. Even if Plaintiff filed its motion to 

convert today, Defendants would not have the necessary time to oppose it, and it would clearly not 

comply with the 35-day notice requirement. Such a result would be unfair to Defendants, and 

Plaintiff provides no real justification to outweigh that prejudice. As such, the Court DENIES 

Case 5:18-cv-03587-BLF Document 38 Filed 09/05/18 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

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to set a hearing date. 

Although Defendant does not directly raise the issue, it appears that it would be 

fundamentally unfair to convert Defendants’ opposition to preliminary injunction into its 

opposition to summary judgment. A party’s burden to defeat summary judgment is wholly 

different than the necessary showing to defeat a preliminary injunction. Further, although it is 

suggested that the September 20, 2018 hearing be reset to October 11, 2018, the Court’s calendar 

is full on that date. Matters are currently being set in February 2019. The Court suggests that 

Plaintiff consider withdrawing its pending preliminary injunction motion and filing a summary 

judgment motion in its stead, noticed for the next available hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-03587-BLF Document 38 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 2