Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05870/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05870-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTIA LELAIND

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, ET AL.

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 06-05870 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment and Plaintiff’s Motion to

Permit Late Filing of Summary

Judgment Opposition Brief

On September 22, 2006 plaintiff Antia Lelaind filed an action against the City and County of

San Francisco and others alleging nine separate causes of action alleging discrimination. On

December 3, 2007 defendants moved for summary judgment on all nine causes of action. Plaintiff’s

opposition was due on December 17, 2007. On December 17 and 18, 2007 plaintiff filed

declarations in opposition. On December 21, 2007 plaintiff asked the court for an extension of time

until December 21 to file her opposition brief. This request was immediately opposed by the

defendants. Although plaintiff concurrently electronically filed a document purporting to be her

opposition brief, the filing was in fact plaintiff’s supplemental declaration. See Docket No. 69. 

However, plaintiff did send a courtesy copy of her opposition brief, without a table of contents or

authorities, to the undersigned’s chambers on December 21, 2007. On December 24, 2007

defendants filed a reply which assumed their motion was unopposed. On December 26, 2007

plaintiff filed the table of contents and authorities to her opposition brief, but not the brief itself. See

Docket No. 75. Consequently, as of December 28, 2007 no opposition brief has been filed on the

court’s electronic filing system.

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file her opposition brief is untimely. She asks

for the extension after the deadline has already passed. Indeed, her initial e-mail request to opposing

Case 3:06-cv-05870-MHP Document 77 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 2
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

counsel asking for a stipulation was also made after the deadline. Although the court sympathizes

with counsel’s position, counsel waited over a month before asking for an extension due to a death

in her family. Counsel’s statement that the extension should be granted because she is a sole

practitioner is without avail since she has previously represented to the court that she has associated

co-counsel in this matter. Finally, a change in the briefing schedule would have forced defendants’

counsel to work over the holidays without any prior notice whatsoever.

The court does not condone plaintiff’s counsel’s behavior. It is disrespectful of both the

court’s and opposing counsel’s time. The incomplete and late filing, which was never electronically

filed, is tantamount to playing fast and loose with the court. Plaintiff’s counsel has, in effect,

extended the time allowed to write and submit her opposition to suit her own needs and whims. The

undersigned will not tolerate any more behavior of this nature. Due to plaintiff’s counsel’s behavior,

the court hereby grants defendants leave to file a supplemental reply brief. Furthermore, in the

interest of fairness, the court will allow defendants as much time as they need to file this

supplemental reply brief. Since defendants’ counsel have made clear that they will be undergoing a

medical procedure after January 7, 2008, the court only asks that defendants’ counsel let the court

know whether they intend to file a supplemental reply and when the court should expect such reply.

The court’s ruling above necessitates that the January 7, 2008 hearing date be vacated. In

addition, the court will deem the matter submitted when defendants’ supplemental reply is

submitted. This obviates the need for any future hearing date regarding the motion for summary

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2007 _______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-05870-MHP Document 77 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 2