Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00025/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-00025-8/pdf.json

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

---

NO. C 09-00025 RS

ORDER

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 

*E-Filed 03/22/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

INSOOK KIM, individually and as 

Successor in Interest for AZIZ R. JAMES, 

Decedent, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF SANTA CLARA; SCOTT 

FITZGERALD; TROY JOHNSON; and 

DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-00025 RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SHORTEN TIME, SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND 

VACATING HEARING 

 In this Section 1983 case, plaintiff Insook Kim has filed a motion to amend her complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Kim seeks to add two additional Santa Clara 

Police Department officers, Lieutenant Phil Cooke and Captain Diana Bishop, as defendants; and 

also to drop her fifth and sixth claims for relief. Simultaneously with the motion to amend , Kim 

filed the instant motion to shorten time, contending that she was entitled to relief from Civil Local 

Rule 7-2(a)’s 35-day hearing requirement because a potentially relevant statute of limitations would 

expire on April 5, 2010, and the earliest hearing date available to her under the 35-day rule was 

Case 5:09-cv-00025-RS Document 69 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 09-00025 RS 

ORDER

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

April 22, 2010. As an alternative, Kim requests an early hearing date of April 1, 2010. Defendants 

oppose the motion to shorten time, contending it was promulgated purely for harassment purposes. 

 The Court has determined that the underlying motion to amend is capable of being 

determined without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Accordingly, the motion to 

shorten time will be granted, but no hearing will be held. The parties shall comply with the 

following briefing schedule: 

• Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend: filed March 18, 2010 

• Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Amend: due March 29, 2010 

• Plaintiff’s Reply to Motion to Amend: due April 1, 2010 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 03/22/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-00025-RS Document 69 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2