Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03430/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03430-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TORESSA LOCKETTE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 07-3430 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO SET ASIDE AUGUST 22,

2007 ORDER; SETTING BRIEFING

SCHEDULE

By order filed August 22, 2007, the Court vacated the September 7, 2007 hearing on

defendants’ Motion to Change Venue and Motion to Dismiss and for a More Definite

Statement, noting plaintiff had not filed any response to either motion, and advised counsel

that both motions would be decided on the moving papers. Thereafter, plaintiff responded

to the Motion to Change Venue by filing opposition thereto, and responded to the Motion to

Dismiss and for a More Definite Statement by filing a First Amended Complaint.

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s “Request for an Order Setting Aside the Court’s

August 22, 2007 Order Vacating the September 7, 2007 Hearing,” filed August 27, 2007, by

which plaintiff requests that the Court consider her First Amended Complaint and late-filed

opposition to the motion to transfer before ruling on defendants’ motions. Having

considered plaintiff’s explanation for the untimely filings and good cause appearing, the

request is hereby GRANTED.

Case 3:07-cv-03430-MMC Document 25 Filed 09/07/07 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

1

By separate order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has denied as moot the

Motion to Dismiss and for a More Definite Statement.

2

If, after considering the parties’ submissions in support of and in opposition to the

Motion to Change Venue, the Court finds oral argument would be of assistance, the Court

will schedule a hearing.

2

The Court sets the following further briefing schedule:

1. No later than September 14, 2007, defendants shall file a reply, if any, to

plaintiff’s opposition to the Motion to Change Venue.1

2. As of September 14, 2007, the Court will take the Motion to Change Venue under

submission.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03430-MMC Document 25 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 2