Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05908/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05908-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

PEPI SCHAFLER,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-5908 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST

TO SHORTEN TIME

HSBC BANK USA, et al.

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s request to shorten time for a hearing on plaintiff’s

motion to sanction Michael Powers, counsel for certain defendants in this action. Plaintiff

seeks to have her motion heard on January 17, 2007, the same date on which certain

defendants’ motions to dismiss the underlying complaint will be heard. Plaintiff’s motion for

sanctions stems from defense counsel’s use of certain documents in the instant action;

plaintiff alleges that defense counsel’s use of the documents is unauthorized and

constitutes sanctionable conduct. No timely opposition to plaintiff’s request to shorten time

has been submitted. 

Preliminarily, plaintiff’s request to shorten time is procedurally defective, as it fails to

comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3. Plaintiff has failed to submit a declaration setting forth the

information required by Civ. L. R. 6-3(a), and has further failed to submit the requisite

proposed order. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, however, and in view of plaintiff’s pro

per status, the court deems plaintiff’s request to shorten time properly submitted. As such,

the court hereby orders as follows:

Plaintiff’s request to shorten time is hereby DENIED. The court will not consider a

request to hear a motion for sanctions that does not give the opposing party full notice and

Case 4:06-cv-05908-PJH Document 36 Filed 01/10/07 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

opportunity to be heard pursuant to the normal 35 day briefing schedule. See Civ. L.R. 7-8.

While plaintiff is not prohibited from re-filing her motion for sanctions in accordance

with the normal 35 day briefing schedule, the court further notes that, based on its review of

plaintiff’s motion, there does not appear to be good cause for the granting of plaintiff’s

request. Should plaintiff choose to re-notice her motion, she should ensure that adequate

grounds exist for the relief she seeks.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05908-PJH Document 36 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2