Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03747/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03747-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7422 IRS: Refund Taxes

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IAN D. HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-3747 PVT

FURTHER ORDER REGARDING

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEFAULT SHOULD NOT BE

ENTERED AGAINST DEFENDANT 

This action was filed on June 13, 2006.1 On November 20, 2006, because Defendant never

filed an answer, the court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Should Not Be Entered

Against Defendant (“Order to Show Cause”). On November 27, 2006 the parties filed a stipulation

purporting to extend the time for Defendant to answer to February 23, 2007, over a month after the

date set for the trial of this matter. Thus, based on the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation is null and void. This court’s Civil

Local Rule 6-1(a) only allows parties to stipulate to extend the time to respond to a complaint when

the extension of time will not alter the date of any event already set by the court. Here, the

September 20, 2006 Case Management Conference Order set the date for the trial of this matter for

Case 5:06-cv-03747-PVT Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 Without such an explanation, any request to extend the deadline to answer the complaint

will not be considered a response to the court’s order to show cause.

ORDER, page 2

January 8, 2007. The stipulation purporting to extend to February 23, 2007 the deadline for

answering the complaint would alter that court-set date, and is thus not authorized by Civil Local

Rule 6-1(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines set in the Order to Show Cause remain in

effect. The court is not opposed to extending the time for Defendant to answer the complaint. 

However, any request for such a continuance, whether joint or separate, must explain why Defendant

failed to file its answer by the previously extended deadline of September 12, 2006,2 and must either

leave intact the trial dates, or else show good cause for moving the trial dates. See Johnson v.

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The scheduling order ‘control[s]

the subsequent course of the action’ unless modified by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). Orders

entered before the final pretrial conference may be modified upon a showing of ‘good cause,’

Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)... .”)

Dated: 11/29/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03747-PVT Document 13 Filed 11/29/06 Page 2 of 2