Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01700/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01700-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

LORRAINE WELLS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-01700-TEH 

ORDER RE: BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

 

Defendants in this case filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on April 22, 

2015. (Docket No. 5). The motion set an incorrect briefing schedule, with Plaintiffs’ 

response due on May 13, 2015, and Defendants’ reply due on May 18, 2015. The Court’s 

Clerk immediately issued a Clerk’s Notice setting the correct response and reply deadlines. 

(Docket No. 7). As explained in the Clerk’s Notice, Civil Local Rule 7-3 provides that the 

response deadline was May 6, 2015, and the reply deadline was May 13, 2015. No filings 

were made by these dates. Instead, the Parties submitted a stipulation on May 13, 2015, 

requesting that the hearing be continued until June 15, 2015. (Docket No. 8). The Court 

granted this request. (Docket No. 9). However, the Court’s Order on the stipulation did 

not change the briefing schedule. As a result, Plaintiffs’ response is now thirteen days late, 

and Defendants’ reply is six days late. 

It appears that the Parties are under the impression that the briefing schedule is 

determined by the hearing date, rather than the motion’s filing date. This is incorrect. As 

provided in Civil Local Rule 7-3, the opposition is due “not more than 14 days after the 

motion was filed.” Civil L.R. 7-3(a). The reply is then due “not more than 7 days after the 

opposition was due.” Civil L.R. 7-3(c). This is the rule that will be strictly applied to all 

future motions absent an approved revision to the briefing schedule. 

As all Parties have now missed their filing deadlines, the Court must set a new 

briefing schedule for this motion. Plaintiffs’ opposition shall be filed on or before May 

Case 3:15-cv-01700-SI Document 10 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

22, 2015. Defendants’ reply shall be filed on or before May 29, 2015. The Parties’ failure 

to adhere to these deadlines, in light of their failure to adhere to the deadlines provided in 

the Local Rules and set by the Clerk’s Notice a month ago, will be met with consequences 

as determined by the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/19/5 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-01700-SI Document 10 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2