Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00284/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00284-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXIS CASTILLO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; 

PERRY HOLLIS; MARTIN SCANLAN;

DAVID SMITH; RON ROTH; COUNTY OF

SAN MATEO; FRANK KASTELL; 

SHERYL WOLCOTT; and DOES 1–50, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00284 WHA

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO

SHORTEN TIME AND TO

BIFURCATE

The Court will hear defendants’ motion to bifurcate at the pretrial conference set for

February 21, 2006. Plaintiff has until NOON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2006, to file any

opposition brief. 

This departure from the Local Rules’ timeline for administrative motions is justified by

the utility of considering the issue on the merits as soon as possible, given that trial is to begin

March 6. The issue is one of procedure. It is simple and does not require extensive briefing. 

Therefore, the deviation from the Local Rules is slight, plaintiff is not prejudiced and

substantial rights are not affected. See Allen v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 342 F.2d 951, 954 (9th

Cir. 1965) (“It is for the court in which a case is pending to determine, except as it is bound by

precedents set by higher authority . . . what departures from . . . rules of court are so slight and

unimportant that the sensible treatment is to overlook them.”); Nunley v. City of L.A., 52 F.3d

792, 795 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] district judge has broad discretion to depart from local rules

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 110 Filed 02/15/06 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

. . . where it makes sense to do so and substantial rights are not at stake.”) (internal quotation

marks omitted). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 110 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2