Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00808/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00808-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

MICHAEL LOPEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CINGULAR WIRELESS, LLC, a )

Delaware Corporation; TERRY HAUFF, )

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0808 AWI SMS

ORDER PERMITTING LATE

FILING OF OPPOSITION,

SETTING MODIFIED

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND

DENYING ORDER

SHORTENING TIME AS

MOOT

In this action for damages for wrongful termination and willful infliction of emotional

distress, defendant Cingular Wireless (“Defendant”) has filed a motion for summary judgment on

all claims for relief alleged by plaintiff Michael Lopez (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment was filed on May 8, 2006, and hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 19,

2006. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230, Plaintiff’s opposition brief was due not later than fourteen

(14) days preceding the hearing date; that is, not later than Monday, June 5, 2006. Plaintiff filed

a motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “to be relieved of counsel’s

mistake and excusable neglect . . . .” 

Since there has been no judgement or order of the court, there is no basis for a motion

pursuant to Rule 60. The court will instead construe Plaintiffs motion to simply be a request for

leave to file a late opposition. The Ninth Circuit has "repeatedly held that a motion for summary

Case 1:05-cv-00808-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 06/09/06 Page 1 of 3
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

judgment cannot be granted simply because the non-moving party violated a local rule." Couveau

v. American Airlines, Inc., 218 F.3d 1078, 1081-82 (9th Cir.2000). Cases should be decided on

their merits whenever reasonably possible. See Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d

811, 814 (9th Cir.1985). Since Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an opposition does not entitle

Defendants to summary judgment, and since the court would still be compelled to decide the

issues presented on their merits, Defendants are not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s late filing of his

opposition so long as the deadline for submission of Defendants’ reply brief is correspondingly

extended. Leave to file a late brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

will therefore be granted.

The court has examined the issues presented by Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment and finds that, upon complete briefing by the parties, the issue will be suitable for

decision without oral argument. Local Rule 78-230(h). Should the court determine oral

argument is warranted after further review of the parties’ submitted materials, the court will set a

date for or oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h).

THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The date set for hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, June 19, 2006, is

hereby VACATED and no party shall appear at that time.

2. Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a late opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition not later than

4:00 p.m., Friday, June 16, 2006.

3. Defendant may file and serve a reply brief not later than 4:00 p.m. Friday, June 23, 2006.

4. The court will take the matter under submission as of Friday, June 23, 2006, and will

thereafter render its decision.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for order shortening time is DENIED as moot.

Case 1:05-cv-00808-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00808-AWI -SMS Document 23 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 3