Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05556/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05556-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY OF 

LABOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN MIGUEL HOMES FOR THE 

ELDERLY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05556-DMR 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 18

The court has received Plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time on his motion for 

leave to file an amended complaint, and Defendants’ opposition thereto. [Docket Nos. 18, 19.] 

Plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time does not comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3(a) and 

may therefore be denied on that basis.1 However, the court finds that it would be more efficient to 

hear Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint concurrently with Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss, which is set for hearing on February 25, 2016. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 

for an order shortening time is granted in part. The February 25, 2016 hearing on Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss is VACATED. The court will hear Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint together on March 10, 2016 at 11:00 

a.m. Any opposition to Plaintiff’s motion is due by February 22, 2016, and any reply is due by 

 

1

Specifically, Plaintiff failed to briefly summarize the position each party had taken with respect 

to the motion for leave to file an amended complaint and failed to describe the effect the requested 

time modification would have on the schedule for the case, in violation of Civil Local Rules 6-

3(a)(4)(ii) and 6-3(a)(6). Defendants argue that Plaintiff was also required to describe his 

compliance with Civil Local Rule 37-1(a), and that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with defense 

counsel prior to filing his motion. However, Rule 37-1(a) applies to motions to compel disclosure 

or discovery; therefore, it is inapplicable to the present motion. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 6-

3(a)(4)(i) (moving party must “[d]escribe[] the moving party’s compliance with Civil L.R. 37-

1(a), where applicable” (emphasis added)).

Case 4:15-cv-05556-DMR Document 20 Filed 02/16/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

February 26, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-05556-DMR Document 20 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2