Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02914/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02914-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ViCHIP CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-2914 PJH

v. ORDER ON MOTION TO

EXTEND TIME TO OPPOSE

TSU-CHANG LEE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Before the court is defendant’s Motion to Modify Case Management and Pretrial

Order to Extend Time to Oppose Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant requests that

the hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, currently scheduled for April 26,

2006, be continued for one week to allow defendant additional time to file an opposition to

plaintiff’s motion. In support of good cause, defendant has submitted a declaration stating

that defendant’s counsel “erroneously calendared” the opposition due date, and due to this

error, counsel was unable to complete defendant’s opposition papers.

The court finds defendant’s calendaring error insufficient to establish “good cause”

for a continuance. Nonetheless, the court would prefer to decide a dispositive motion on a

full set of carefully prepared papers. Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s

motion. Defendant’s opposition brief is due no later than April 12, 2006, and plaintiff’s reply

brief is due no later than April 19, 2006. Due to the court’s unavailability on May 3,

however, the hearing date is continued until May 17, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02914-PJH Document 188 Filed 04/06/06 Page 1 of 1