Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02090/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02090-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MELISSA WHEELER,

NO. CIV. S 03-2090 MCE GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CSK AUTO, INC., and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 15, 2005, Larry Schapiro, counsel for Plaintiff in

this matter, submitted his declaration to the Court in support of

an ex parte request to continue the hearing on Defendant’s Motion

for Summary Judgment, presently set for June 20, 2005. According

to Mr. Schapiro, the press of other business prevented him from

submitting a timely opposition to that Motion, and he

consequently requests additional time in order to respond.

Case 2:03-cv-02090-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 06/16/05 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

2

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(d), any opposition to

Defendant’s Motion was due not less than fourteen (14) days

preceding the June 20, 2005 hearing date. Consequently,

Plaintiff’s counsel had until June 6, 2005 to file his

opposition. Not only was no such opposition filed, but counsel

did not even make the instant request for additional time until

nine days after opposition was due, and at a point just five days

before the scheduled hearing date on Defendant’s Motion.

Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to demonstrate any good cause

for permitting an additional continuance. By Order dated May 20,

2005, this Court already permitted one continuance of the same

Motion for Summary Judgment in order to accommodate Mr.

Schapiro’s schedule. Additionally, and at a very minimum,

counsel has failed at this juncture to show why he could not have

requested a continuance in advance of the date his opposition was

due, rather than filing nothing at all until less than a week

before the instant motion was set to be heard.

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for continuance of

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is accordingly DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 17, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02090-MCE -GGH Document 41 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 2