Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05102/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

GEORGE FINLEY,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

No. C 04-5102 MEJ

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL,

RICHARD MEIER, TO FILE

DECLARATION BY DECEMBER 7, 2005

AT 10:00 A.M.

On November 29, 2005, Plaintiff's counsel, Richard Meier, filed a declaration in which he states

that he is unfamiliar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was unaware that the Civil Local Rules

establish a briefing schedule for motion practice before this Court. Mr. Meier requested a continuance of

the summary judgment hearing, currently scheduled for December 8, 2005. Before making its decision, the

Court permitted Defendants an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's request.

Based on Defendants' response, it appears that Mr. Meier has not been forthright with the Court. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Mr. Meier to e-file a declaration no later than December 7, 2005

at 10:00 a.m. In his declaration, Mr. Meier shall, under penalty of perjury, explain how he was unaware of

the Civil Local Rules, and specifically Civil Local Rule 7, considering he has appeared in this district at least

since 1990. Mr. Meier shall also explain why he was not on notice of the Court's motion briefing schedule

established in Local Rule 7, specifically in consideration of his failure to timely file an opposition in another

Case 3:04-cv-05102-MEJ Document 24 Filed 12/05/05 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

case before this Court, Gebrewmeskel v. Regatta Holdings, Inc., et al., C-04-1126 MMC. In that case,

Mr. Meier filed a declaration stating that his office mis-calendared the opposition due date and requested

leave to file a late opposition (Docket #43). Counsel was certainly on notice of the Court's local rules as of

that case because, prior to the date Mr. Meier filed his declaration, counsel for the opposing party filed a

reply brief in which she clearly stated that pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, the opposition was due to be filed

and served 21 days before the hearing date (Docket #40). 

Upon receipt and review of Mr. Meier's declaration, the Court shall consider whether to allow

Plaintiff to file an opposition and continue the hearing date. Until that time, the parties should be prepared

to present oral arguments on December 8, 2005, as scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2005 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05102-MEJ Document 24 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2