Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00310/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00310-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN & CASSANDRA SPRINGER, ) 02:06-cv-0310-GEB-DAD

Individually and as Guardians Ad )

Litem for their minor children )

CAMERON S. and CHRISTIAN S., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) ORDER 

)

COUNTY OF PLACER; THOMAS LIND, )

individually and as an employee of )

the COUNTY OF PLACER; RHONDA )

LARSON, individually and as an )

employee of the COUNTY OF PLACER; )

DAVID JOHNSON, individually and as )

an employee of the COUNTY OF )

PLACER; JENNIFER COOK, )

individually and as an employee of ) 

the COUNTY OF PLACER; DEBBIE )

MORRIS, individually and as an )

employee of the COUNTY OF PLACER; ) 

LISA GRIMALDI, individually and as )

an employee of the COUNTY OF )

PLACER; and Does 1-10 inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 21, 2006,

which was noticed for hearing on May 22, 2006. Under Local Rule 78-

230(c), Plaintiffs had until May 8, 2006, to timely respond to the

motion. See L.R. 78-230(c) (stating “[o]pposition, if any, to the

granting of the motion . . . shall be filed with the Clerk not less

than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date”). 

Case 2:06-cv-00310-GEB-DAD Document 22 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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

On May 15, 2006, one week after the deadline had passed, Plaintiffs

filed an opposition to the motion. In addition, Plaintiffs filed an

ex parte application, a declaration, and a proposed order requesting

their opposition “be deemed timely filed” and the hearing date be

continued. (See Proposed Order at 2.) On May 17, 2006, Defendants

filed a response to the ex parte application, which states they

“neither oppose nor support [P]laintiffs’ request for continuance of

the . . . hearing.” 

In the declaration Plaintiffs’ counsel states he did not

timely file the opposition in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(c)

because his office assistant “simply forgot to calendar the motion or

advise [him] of its existence.” (Powell Decl. ¶ 5.) This excuse

erroneously assumes that counsel’s office assistant, rather than

counsel, is responsible for ensuring compliance with filing deadlines.

Even when a non-attorney is given the task of a court deadline, “it

should never be forgotten that the attorney of record is ultimately

responsible for . . . [compliance with that deadline].” Dela Rosa v.

Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc., 136 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th

Cir. 1998). “It is . . . the professional duty of the attorney of

record to ensure . . . compl[iance] with the applicable rules.” Id. 

Obviously, counsel must “focus some attention on the

importance of [filing documents on time] and of devising a system

which will avoid tardiness and complicating delays in the

administration of the business of the Court.” In re Allis, 531 F.2d

1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1976). Filing deadlines are “not whimsically

created,” but rather “serve to effectuate an efficient system for the

orderly resolution of legal disputes.” Dela Rosa, 136 F.3d at 1244

(stating “[t]he cogs of the wheel of justice move much more smoothly

Case 2:06-cv-00310-GEB-DAD Document 22 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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

when attorneys . . . follow the rules of practice and procedure”);

Legault v. Zambarano, 105 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 1997) (noting “a

party’s failure to file pretrial papers in a timely manner” often

causes “unnecessary preparation, confusion or distraction”); In re

Intermagnetics America, Inc., 101 B.R. 191, 193 (C.D. Cal. 1989)

(stating “[t]imetables for the submission of responding papers . . .

are intended to provide a framework for the fair, orderly, and

efficient resolution of disputes”). 

Plaintiffs’ ex parte request to deem their opposition timely

is nonsensical since, as Plaintiffs’ counsel should know, it was

clearly and inexcusably untimely. I will not deem the opposition

timely because that is untrue. Cf. Legault, 105 F.3d at 29 (1st Cir.

1997) (stating “parties should not be allowed casually to flout [due

dates] or painlessly to escape the foreseeable consequences of

noncompliance”). Plaintiffs’ counsel should also know that “[e]x

parte applications are not intended to save the day for parties who

. . . failed to [file] when they should have.” In re Intermagnetics,

101 B.R. at 193. Further, Plaintiffs and their counsel are warned

that sanctions jurisprudence can be invoked when a filing deadline is

missed. 

Since Plaintiffs’ opposition has been filed and measures can

be taken in this instance to cope with the disruption to the orderly

framework for handling the motion, those measures are invoked. 

Accordingly, the opposition to the motion will be considered; any

reply to the opposition shall be filed no later than May 29, 2006. In

addition, the motion is submitted; a hearing will be scheduled only if

considered necessary. See L.R. 78-230(h) (stating a motion “may be

Case 2:06-cv-00310-GEB-DAD Document 22 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

submitted upon the record and briefs on file . . . subject to the

power of the Court to reopen the matter for . . . oral arguments”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 18, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00310-GEB-DAD Document 22 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 4