Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00633/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00633-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASHAWN BAREFIELD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE )

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, )

BAKERSFIELD, JIM GEORGE, )

DIANE HENDRICKSON, )

MARK MURIE, DOES 1 through 50, )

inclusive )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CASE NO. CV-F-05-00633 AWI/

TAG

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR

AN ORDER CONTINUING

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT HEARING DATE

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

FOR AN ORDER TO FILE

LATE BRIEF OPPOSING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

Defendants have noticed for hearing and decision a Motion for Summary Judgement or,

in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues. The matter was scheduled for hearing on

May 29, 2007. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), Plaintiff was required to file either an

opposition or a notice of non-opposition no later than May 15, 2007. Plaintiff failed to do so. 

Defendants filed a reply memorandum on May 21, 2007 requesting that their motion be granted

in its entirety, and that Defendant not be heard at oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 78-230.

Plaintiff has filed an ex parte application for an order continuing the hearing date for

Defendants’ motion, or in the alternative for an order to file a late brief in opposition to

Case 1:05-cv-00633-AWI-TAG Document 80 Filed 05/22/07 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

Defendants’ motion. According to Plaintiff’s counsel, due to inexplicable technical error, he did

not receive notice of Defendants’ motion. In a declaration filed in support of Plaintiff’s ex parte

application, Plaintiff’s counsel also states that due to a death in the family he did not review the

docket during this time period. The Court sees no prejudice to Defendants and will grant

Plaintiff’s application to continue the hearing date. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s ex parte request to continue the

hearing date is GRANTED. The hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in

the alternative, summary adjudication is continued to June 11, 2007. Plaintiff’s opposition to

Defendants’ motion is due by 4:00 p.m. on May 25, 2007. Defendants’ reply brief is due by 4:00

p.m. on June 4, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00633-AWI-TAG Document 80 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2