Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04702/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-04702-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED LAM, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 08-4702 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court are plaintiffs’ motion for administrative relief in order to continue the

April 21 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the parties’ corresponding

stipulation to continue the same hearing. The filing of both was occasioned by the untimely

filing of an opposition brief by plaintiffs. Instead of filing the opposition brief on March 30,

as required by the local rules, plaintiffs filed their opposition brief one week late, on April 7 –

thereby preventing defendants from filing a timely reply brief.

Having reviewed the parties’ papers, however, the court hereby DENIES the motion

to continue the hearing date. It is counsel’s responsibility to remain apprised of all courtimposed deadlines, and given the voluminous law and motion calendar already scheduled

for the months of April and May, the court cannot effectively accommodate plaintiffs’ newly

proposed hearing date of April 28. 

In order to prevent undue prejudice to defendants, however, the court hereby grants

defendants until April 14, 2010, on which to file their reply brief. The court recognizes that

this presents defendants with a shortened time frame in which to file their reply. 

Nonetheless, in view of the limited nature of the legal issues presented by way of

defendants’ motion and plaintiffs’ opposition brief, the court finds that even this shortened

Case 4:08-cv-04702-PJH Document 119 Filed 04/09/10 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

time frame is sufficient to allow defendants to adequately prepare their reply. 

Accordingly, the hearing will take place as scheduled, on April 21, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-04702-PJH Document 119 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 2