Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04945/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04945-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 V

RCMC, INC, et al,

Defendant.

 /

No C 06-4945 VRW

ORDER

The dispositive motion hearing date in this case is

currently set for May 3, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7,

plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment against all

defendants on March 29, 2007, “not less than 35 days” before the

hearing date. Doc ##137-143. Defendants Douglas and Marla

Anderson, Michael and Martha Soave, and Richard and Jacoba Moser

(the “Anderson defendants”) filed a joint opposition to the motion

on April 12, 2007, “not less than 21 days” before the hearing date

Doc ##146-148. Plaintiff filed a timely reply on April 19, 2007. 

Doc ##149-153. 

Case 3:06-cv-04945-VRW Document 160 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 3
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

On April 20, 2007, a full eight days late and after

plaintiff completed its briefing, defendants RCMC, Inc, Peter

Richardson, Clifford and Dianna McClure, Helon Chichester and James

Lambert (the “RCMC defendants”) filed their joint opposition to

plaintiff’s motion. Doc ##154-157. Defendants never requested

leave of court to extend time for their briefing.

The Court has discretion to disregard papers filed after

a filing deadline. See Pfeil v Rogers, 757 F2d 850, 858 (7th Cir

1985). The court will, however, allow the additional late briefing

on the condition that the RCMC defendants reimburse plaintiff for

the cost of plaintiff’s additional reply. “The district court is

given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of

litigation.” Arakaki v Lingle, 477 F3d 1048, 1069 (9th Cir 2007);

see also Annis v Arrow Trucking Co, 2006 WL 2193277, 2 (ND Okla

2006) (citing Northern District of Oklahoma Civil Local Rule

7.2(f), which states: “[I]n the discretion of the Court, the party

failing to respond [to a dispositive motion] shall be subject to

sanctions, including but not limited to all attorney fees and costs

incurred by the moving party in connection with such failure to

timely oppose the motion.”)

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

Case 3:06-cv-04945-VRW Document 160 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The hearing on plaintiff’s motion, currently set for May

3, 2007, is vacated and continued to June 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm. 

Plaintiff is to file its additional reply on or before May 11,

2007. Plaintiff is to submit its application for attorney’s fees

and costs associated with the additional briefing on or before May

18, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04945-VRW Document 160 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 3