Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00796/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00796-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JODY GARDNER CLANAHAN, CASE NO. CV F 05-0796 LJO DLB

Plaintiff, ORDER re: REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF FOR

EXTENSION TO FILE OPPOSITION 

vs. (doc. 148)

MCFARLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The Court has received and reviewed the “Plaintiff’s Request for One Week’s Extension Of Time

To File Opposition To Motions For New Trial And Proposed Order.” The motion’s basis is two-fold:

1) The press of business due to a binding arbitration in June, 2007;

2) Health concerns from and after “an incident in the courtroom” on June 30, 2007

The plaintiff’s opposition to the motions for new trial was due today, June 5, 2007. Although

plaintiff’s counsel states in her instant request that she knows of no urgency for the need for her to

respond to the pending motions, the Court does. The longer the duration from the trial to the time of a

ruling on post trial motions, the more difficult it is for the Court to rule with specificity. The

undersigned is currently handling matters in approximately sixty to seventy cases per week. The

efficient and timely handling of cases before the Court is of paramount urgency in this and all other

matters.

Case 1:05-cv-00796-LJO -DLB Document 149 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Nonetheless, the Court finds that good cause exists for the granting of the one week requested

continuance. The plaintiff’s opposition to the motions for new trial will now be due to be filed on or

before NOON on Thursday, July 12, 2007. On that date, at that time, the Court will either rule, or will

set a date and time for oral argument, depending on whether the Court finds the need for oral argument

based on the papers filed. Plaintiff’s counsel must file the opposition electronically, and also FAX the

opposition directly to chambers (559) 499-5959.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00796-LJO -DLB Document 149 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 2