Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04722/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04722-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Fair Labor Standards

---

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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

CAESAR OSKAN, individually, on behalf of 

all other similarly situated persons, and on 

behalf of the California Labor Workforce 

Development Agency and the State of 

California, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

APPLE AMERICAN GROUP; APPLE 

NORCAL, LLC, and DOES 1-20, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 08-4722 SBA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY 

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

ISSUED ON JUNE 17, 2009 

Docket 57 

On June 23, 2010, the Court entered an Order for Pretrial Preparation which set a law 

and motion cut-off date of May 18, 2010, and a trial date of July 12, 2010. Currently on 

calendar for May 4, 2010, is Plaintiff’s motion to continue the trial date and motion to file an 

amended complaint. On March 30, 2010, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-10, Plaintiff filed the 

instant Ex Parte Application to Modify Case Management Order Issued On June 17, 2009, to 

extend the deadline to file a motion for class certification and/or motion for summary judgment 

until ten days after the Court rules on the motions to continue the trial date and to amend the 

complaint. 

Plaintiff’s ex parte application is not properly before the Court. In violation of the 

Court’s standing orders, Plaintiff filed his request without first meeting and conferring with 

Defendants. In addition, Plaintiff’s ex parte application is not cognizable under Civil Local 

Rule 7-10. Local Rule 7-10 permits the filing of an ex parte motion “only if a statute, Federal 

Rule, local rule of Standing Order authorizes the filing of an ex parte motion . . . .” Here, 

Plaintiff claims that his application is authorized by Rule 16(b)(4). Pl.’s Ex Parte Appl. at 7. 

Case 4:08-cv-04722-SBA Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

However, that rule merely states that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good cause and 

with the judge’s consent,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4); it makes no mention of authorizing an ex 

parte application to alter the pretrial schedule. Plaintiff’s ten-page request is instead governed 

by Local Rule 6-3 or 7-11, which limits such motions to five pages in length. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Ex Parte Application to Modify Case Management 

Order Issued On June 17, 2009 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Should Plaintiff seek to 

renew his ex parte application, he must first conduct a telephonic or face-to-face meet and 

confer with Defendants regarding any and all issues he intends to raise in such application, and 

certify to the Court in his application that he has complied with this requirement. In addition, 

any renewed application and opposition thereto shall not exceed five pages in length. This 

Order terminates Docket No. 57. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2010 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:08-cv-04722-SBA Document 60 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2