Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00700/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00700-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 730
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Report &amp; Disclosure
Cause of Action: 29:0401 Labor Management Disclosure Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOM SPEAR,

Plaintiff

 v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF

BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED

CRAFTWORKERS, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-0700 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff’s application, filed March 29, 2007, for an order

shortening time for hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which motion

plaintiff anticipates filing on April 5, 2007. Plaintiff proposes that defendants’ opposition be

filed April 19, 2007, that plaintiff’s reply be filed April 24, 2007, and that the matter be heard

on April 27, 2007. Defendants have filed a response in which they indicate they have no

opposition to plaintiff’s proposed schedule.

At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff apparently does not intend to file a selfcontained new motion but, rather, to cross-reference and supplement the papers he filed in

connection with his previously-filed motion for a temporary restraining order. If plaintiff so

intends, plaintiff is hereby advised that he should instead file a single memorandum of

points of authorities that addresses all of the issues plaintiff wishes to raise at this time,

Case 3:07-cv-00700-MMC Document 43 Filed 03/30/07 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

1

Plaintiff represents that “defense counsel has informed plaintiff’s counsel that he will

be out of the State from May 4 through May 22.” (See Katzenbach Decl., filed March 29,

2007, ¶ 11.) Such “counsel” is unidentified, and the Court assumes the entire firm will not

be unavailable during such period. Should defendants seek to move the hearing by reason

of a scheduling conflict, defendants must show why they cannot proceed on May 11, 2007,

with one or more other members of the firm.

2

irrespective of whether such issues have been raised in any earlier-filed document. Plaintiff

may, however, cross-reference exhibits filed in support of his prior motion.

With respect to the question of shortened time, the Court finds the schedule

proposed by plaintiff, and agreed to by defendants, provides insufficient time for the Court

to review the parties’ respective submissions prior to the hearing. Further, plaintiff has not

shown that the asserted risk of irreparable injury will be increased to any significant degree

if the motion is heard on a regular 35-day briefing schedule, which results in a hearing date

of May 11, 2007, rather than April 27, 2007.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00700-MMC Document 43 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2