Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00458/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00458-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Asbestos Litigation

---

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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

PATRICK DUNKIN, et al., 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

A.W. CHESTERSON CO., et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 10-458 SBA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

ORDER SHORTENING TIME

Docket 39 

 Defendants removed the instant action from state court on February 2, 2010, on the 

basis of diversity jurisdiction. On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand which 

they noticed for March 16, 2010. At the same time, Plaintiffs also filed a motion for an order 

shortening time to have the motion to remand set for hearing on March 2, 2010, instead of 

March 16, 2010. Neither March 16 nor March 2 was an available hearing date on the Court’s 

calendar. Thus, on February 17, 2010, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs’ motion for an 

order shortening time in which it declined to schedule the motion for hearing on March 2, 

2010, but instead, set an accelerated briefing schedule for the opposition and reply. 

Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion for Clarification of Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Order Shortening Time. Apparently, Plaintiffs take exception to the fact that the 

Court’s briefing schedule set by the Court in its February 17, 2010 Order is the same schedule 

that would have been applicable had the motion been heard on March 16, 2010. The flaw in 

Plaintiffs’ reasoning is that at the time Plaintiffs filed their motion to remand, the March 16, 

2010 hearing date was not available on the Court’s calendar. Had Plaintiffs checked the 

Case 4:10-cv-00458-SBA Document 45 Filed 03/17/10 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 

Court’s website, they would have realized this. Thus, absent the briefing schedule imposed by 

the Court, the matter would not be heard until after March 16, 2010 and the briefs would have 

been due later than the dates ordered by the Court. This information should have been readily 

apparent to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification of Order 

Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Shortening Time is DENIED AS MOOT. This 

Order terminates Docket 39. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:10-cv-00458-SBA Document 45 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 2