Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04941/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04941-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

BERNADINE LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et

al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-04941 CRB

ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HEARING 

Now pending before the Court is the motion of defendant Pacific Maritime

Association for summary judgment. At a hearing on March 2, 2007, the Court ordered

defendant to file its motion for summary judgment by June 1, 2007 and scheduled the hearing

on the motion for July 13. Pursuant to the Local Rules, plaintiff’s opposition was due on or

before June 22, 2007. Plaintiff, however, did not file her opposition papers until July 8, after

defendant filed its Reply Memorandum. Plaintiff did not seek permission from the Court or

defendant to file her papers late.

Defendant has shown good cause for striking the late-filed papers. Plaintiff has

repeatedly ignored this Court’s Local Rules; this is not the first time she has been dilatory in

prosecuting her action. Nevertheless, it is in the interests of all parties to decide this case on

the merits. Accordingly, the July 13 hearing is continued to August 10, 2007. Defendant

may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition on or before July 27, 2007. The Court is 

Case 3:06-cv-04941-CRB Document 53 Filed 07/10/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2006\4941\orderrereply.wpd 2

granting the continuance solely to allow defendant to file a reply; in the meantime plaintiff

may not conduct additional discovery and may not supplement her opposition. At the

hearing on August 10, 2007, the Court will consider plaintiff’s argument that she requires

additional discovery to respond to defendant’s motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04941-CRB Document 53 Filed 07/10/07 Page 2 of 2