Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00002/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00002-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

KIN WAH KUNG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EQUIFAX INC., d/b/a EQUIFAX

INFORMATION SERVICES LLC,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 15-00002 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

On February 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendant’s answer. Under the

Northern District Civil Local Rules, Defendant’s opposition is due today, March 4, 2015. 

Defendant has filed a motion for an extension of time to respond, on the basis that it “will be

unfairly prejudiced if forced to respond to a potentially dispositive motion in such a short period

of time.” (Mot. at 2:3-4.) Defendant, however, has not explained why it was not able to

comply with the time periods set forth in the Local Rules. 

In addition, Defendant filed its motion for an extension on the date its opposition was

due, rather than sufficiently in advance of that date to permit Plaintiff to respond and for the

Court to rule within the time periods set forth in Local Rule 7-11. See Civil Standing Order ¶ 4

(“Parties seeking to enlarge a filing deadline by way of a Motion for Administrative Relief are

admonished to file such a motion in advance of the filing deadline, rather than on the day a brief

or other matter is due.”).

//

Case 4:15-cv-00002-JSW Document 25 Filed 03/04/15 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

Accordingly, notwithstanding Defendant’s representation that the parties are attempting

to resolve this matter, the Court DENIES Defendant’s request for an extension. Defendant’s

opposition remains due on March 4, 2015, unless it obtains a stipulation from Plaintiff to extend

the briefing deadlines.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-00002-JSW Document 25 Filed 03/04/15 Page 2 of 2