Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05591/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05591-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 1

 Plaintiffs appear to be referring to the pretrial conference.

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

(JFLC1)

** E-filed on 7/8/05 **

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CITY OF CAMPBELL, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 03-05591 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

[Docket No. 37]

Plaintiffs move to change the time for briefing and oral argument on Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment, the “status conference,”1 and trial. Defendants oppose the motion. The

Court has read the moving and responding papers and considered the oral arguments of counsel

presented on July 8, 2005. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and

denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

As previously recited in the Court’s Order of July 5, 2005, Defendants filed a duly

noticed motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on June 3,

2005, to be heard on July 8, 2005. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion was due by June 17, 2005.
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

 The “Notice” also purportedly set a date of July 22, 2005, for a hearing, presumably on

the notice itself. However, Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court’s standing order regarding

the procedure for obtaining hearing dates. Thus, no hearing was set on the Court’s calendar for

that date.

2

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

(JFLC1)

However, rather than filing an opposition brief, Plaintiffs filed a “Notice of Intent to Move for

Change of Time (for Hearing on Summary Judgment Motion, Due Date for Opposition, Status

Conference, and Trial)” on June 17, 2005. The “Notice” stated that Plaintiffs were pursuing a

stipulation to change time to accommodate an anticipated change in counsel and that, in the event

that an agreement could not be “promptly reached” with Defendants, Plaintiffs would move

formally to change time.2 It was not until July 1, 2005—two weeks after the “Notice” was filed

and one week before the date set for hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment—that

Plaintiffs filed a motion to change time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3. Given the time

constraints created by Plaintiffs’ delayed filing, on July 5, 2005, the Court vacated the hearing

date for Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and instead scheduled oral argument on

Plaintiffs’ motion to change time for July 8, 2005. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to continue the dates for (1) the hearing on Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment, (2) the deadlines for briefing with respect to that motion, (3) the pretrial

conference, which currently is set for August 19, 2005, and (4) the trial, which currently is set for

September 2, 2005. A motion to change time must, among other things, set forth with

particularity the reasons for the requested enlargement of time, describe the efforts the moving

party has made to obtain a stipulation to the time change, and identify the “substantial harm or

prejudice that would occur if the Court did not change the time.” Civil L.R. 6-3(a). 

Plaintiffs represent that the reason for the instant motion is “to allow Plaintiffs (and

partial assignee, Wayne Seminoff Company) their counsel of choice to handle this litigation.”

Mot. at 2. Nicholas Damer (“Damer”) currently is Plaintiffs’ counsel of record. He was

substituted for Plaintiffs’ previous counsel, McManis Faulkner & Morgan, on October 6, 2004.

Damer declares that he became Plaintiffs’ counsel “principally in order to relieve the first
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

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

(JFLC1)

attorneys of record . . . while Wayne Seminoff . . . tried to negotiate a settlement directly with

defense counsel” and that he had “never extensively worked on the case” before Defendants filed

their motion for summary judgment on June 3, 2005. Id.; see also id. at 5. Damer represents that

Plaintiffs seek to be represented by Thomas Bowne (“Bowne”). See id., Ex. A at 1 (letter from

Wayne Seminoff (“Seminoff”) stating that “Bowne is my choice to litigate the above case due to

his five year record of winning cases where courts have had to pay back interest earned on public

trust fund deposits”). However, Plaintiffs’ written consent to Bowne’s representation and his

payment by Seminoff has not yet been secured.

Bowne declares that he was asked to review the file for this case in February 2005 and

that he discussed settlement of the case with Defendants’ counsel, Michael Rossi (“Rossi”), via

e-mail over the course of more than a month. See Mot. at 4. Settlement efforts were unsuccessful,

see id., and there is no evidence that Bowne continued to work on the case after those

negotiations failed. Then, on June 6, 2005, Damer contacted Bowne regarding Defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Id. Bowne indicated that, due to travel plans, he was unable to

consider the matter until after June 28, 2005, and that, due to other obligations, he would be

unable to respond to the motion for summary judgment until September 1, 2005. Id. at 4-5.

Bowne declares that, because of other trial dates, he could not participate in a trial in the instant

case before April 1, 2006, but that he will “associate to this matter” if the Court grants the

requested extensions of time. Id. at 5.

As for the other requirements imposed by Civil Local Rule 6-3(a), Plaintiffs assert that

they attempted to obtain a stipulation to change time and that they will suffer “[s]ubstantial harm

and prejudice” if the instant motion is denied, because Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment will go unopposed, and they will be unable to “present their case ‘on the merits.’” Id. at

3. However, evidence submitted in support of the instant motion reveals that Damer did not

attempt to communicate with Defendants’ counsel regarding a stipulation to change time until

June 16, 2005, only one day before Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary
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

 Plaintiffs have submitted a letter dated June 16, 2005, from Damer to Rossi requesting

an enlargement of time. See Mot., Ex. A at 7-8. Rossi declares that Damer called him on June 17

and that he returned Damer’s call on June 20, the next business day, to communicate Defendants’

refusal to stipulate to an enlargement of time. See Rossi Aff. ¶¶ 31-32.

4

 Defendants dispute this characterization and assert that Plaintiffs have been aware of the

issues raised in the motion for summary judgment since the Court denied Defendants’ motion to

dismiss in May 2004. Defendants’ counsel also represented at the hearing on the instant motion

that the filing of the motion for summary judgment was delayed for several weeks to

accommodate Plaintiffs’ request for additional time. 

5

 While the Court has not reviewed all of the exhibits to Rossi’s 124-page affidavit in

support of Defendants’ opposition, it is satisfied that Defendants were sufficiently clear in their

correspondence with Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding their intention to file a motion for summary

judgment and their assessment of the asserted legal grounds for Plaintiffs’ claims.

4

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

(JFLC1)

judgment was due.3See id., Ex. A at 7-8. Moreover, as Defendants correctly point out, any harm

or prejudice suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the lack of opposition to Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment was caused by their own counsel. Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants acted

improperly by setting their motion for hearing on the customary five-week schedule rather than

working with Plaintiffs’ counsel to establish an extended briefing schedule, because the motion

for summary judgment is unusually “complex.” Mot. at 3. However, even if it is true that the

complexity of Defendants’ motion would warrant additional time for briefing,4 Plaintiffs do not

request a brief continuance to address the complexity of the issues presented but rather a

continuance of months in order to accommodate Bowne’s schedule. 

In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion to change time, Defendants argue that the real reason for

the instant motion is not Plaintiffs’ desire to obtain the counsel of their choice but an “attempt to

hide their lackadaisical prosecution of this action.” Opp’n at 3. Defendants assert that, in their

correspondence with Plaintiffs’ counsel over several months earlier this year, including at least

one letter to Damer, they mentioned repeatedly that they would file a motion for summary

judgment if Plaintiffs did not dismiss the matter, and they presented the legal grounds upon

which they would make their motion.5 Despite that knowledge, Bowne apparently stopped

representing Plaintiffs, and Damer failed to file an opposition brief or to move for a change of

time in a timely manner. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ current actions are part of a pattern
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

5

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

(JFLC1)

of delay that has impeded Defendants’ ability to investigate this case and that has prejudiced

Defendants.

Although Plaintiffs’ counsel has not acted with all possible diligence and has failed to

comply with this Court’s procedural rules governing the matters discussed above, the Court

concludes that denying the motion to change time in its entirety would be unduly harsh,

particularly where at least some of the delay appears to be attributable to Plaintiffs’ legitimate

desire to obtain new counsel. For these reasons and for the reasons stated on the record at the

hearing, the Court will modify the briefing and hearing schedule slightly, as set forth below, in an

attempt to accommodate the interests of both Plaintiffs and Defendants. 

III. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to

change time is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their

opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on or before July 25, 2005. Defendants

shall file and serve their reply on or before August 1, 2005. Hearing on the motion for summary

judgment is set for August 5, 2005. If necessary, the Court will reschedule the pretrial conference

and trial following its ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

DATED: July 8, 2005

/s/ (electronic signature authorized)

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge
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

6

Case No. C 03-05591 JF

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CHANGE TIME

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Nicholas Damer nicliberty@aol.com, kldamer@aol.com 

Michael L. Rossi michael.rossi@cco.co.scl.ca.us