Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02580/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02580-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

1

However, the Court admonishes Defendants for not filing their motion to stay earlier,

so that an application shortening time would not have been necessary. Presumably, the

July 26, 2007 hearing was scheduled weeks earlier.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET A. GONZALES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C07-2580 TEH

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION

TO SHORTEN TIME TO HEAR

MOTION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ application to shorten time to hear

Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending a determination by the Judicial Panel for

Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether to consolidate this case with other actions

pending in other districts. The JPML heard a motion to consolidate these cases on July 26,

2007.

Upon careful consideration of Defendants’ application and supporting documents, the

Court finds no opposition to be necessary and hereby GRANTS Defendants’ application to

preserve judicial economy.1

 Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to stay on or before

Monday, August 13, 2007. Defendants have waived their reply.

2. Defendants’ motion to stay shall be scheduled for hearing on Monday, August 20,

2007, at 10:00 AM. After reviewing the parties’ written arguments, the Court may

determine that Defendants’ motion is suitable for decision without oral argument, in which

case the Court will notify the parties prior to the scheduled motion hearing date.

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Defendants could also have accomplished a stay on their motion to dismiss by simply

filing a notice continuing the motion hearing date. See Civ. L.R. 7-7(a).

2

3. To conserve judicial resources and those of the parties, all other matters in this

case, including Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, shall be temporarily stayed pending

resolution of Defendants’ motion to stay.2

 Thus, the parties need not complete their Rule

26(f) planning conference on August 6, and Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to

dismiss shall no longer be due on August 6.

4. If this Court denies Defendants’ motion to stay and the JPML has not issued an

order consolidating this case with other cases in another district, then this Court will set

prompt deadlines for the parties to complete their Rule 26(f) planning conference, as well as

a new case management conference date and a revised briefing and hearing schedule for

Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 08/02/07 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:07-cv-02580-TEH Document 28 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2