Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

The Court construes the application as a motion to shorten time, pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 6-3. The Court did not rule on the instant application upon its filing, as had been

requested by plaintiffs, because no “statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order

authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion” to shorten time to hear a noticed motion. See

Civil L.R. 7-10 (setting forth limited circumstances in which matter may be heard on “ex

parte” basis).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Defendant ___________________________________

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Cross-complainant,

 v.

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Cross-defendants /

No. C-07-3962 MMC

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

AMEND; VACATING HEARING ON

CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR

DISCHARGE OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time to

Hear Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Their Pleadings,” filed December 30, 2007. 

Defendant/Cross-complainant Alliance Title Company (“Alliance”) has filed opposition, to

which plaintiffs have replied. Having read and considered the papers submitted in support

of and in opposition to the application,1

 the Court rules as follows.

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 57 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Any response to the motion to amend is due no later than January 18, 2008. See

Civil L. R. 7-3(a) (providing opposition to motion must be filed no later than 21 days before

hearing date).

2

On December 30, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint

against Alliance and to amend their answer to Alliance’s cross-complaint; said motion, in

accordance with the Civil Local Rules of this District, is noticed for a February 8, 2008

hearing. Earlier, on December 21, 2007, Alliance filed a motion for summary judgment in

its favor on all claims brought against it by plaintiffs and on all claims it has brought against

plaintiffs, including a claim for attorney fees, and noticed said motion for hearing on

January 25, 2008. Plaintiffs seek an order shortening time for the hearing of their motion,

to allow their motion to be heard either before or at the same time as Alliance’s motion.

To ensure a reasonably orderly procedure and to avoid the need for supplemental

briefing, the pleadings must be settled before the Court determines whether summary

judgment is appropriate. Consequently, the Court will hear plaintiffs’ motion to amend

before it hears Alliance’s dispositive motion. In light of Alliance’s concern that it needs the

usual amount of time to prepare a response to the motion to amend,2

 however, the Court

will not hear plaintiffs’ motion to amend on shortened time.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ application for an order shortening is hereby DENIED, and

said motion remains as scheduled for hearing on February 8, 2008. The January 25, 2008

hearing on Alliance’s motion for discharge and/or summary judgment is hereby VACATED,

and may be renoticed for hearing, or refiled as amended, after the Court has ruled on

plaintiffs’ motion to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 57 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 2