Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02909/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-02909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
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

* E-filed 9/24/08*

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GILBERTO FERNANDEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLIANCE BANCORP, et. al,

Defendants. /

Case No. CV 08-02909 HRL

ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE,

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the court's own motion, the Initial Case

Management Conference—currently noticed for September 30, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.—is continued

to November 4, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th floor of the United States District

Court, San Jose. The joint case management statement shall be filed not later than October 28,

2008.

In addition, the court has received plaintiff's Petition for Leave to File Out of Time and

Request for a 45-day Continuance (docket number 35). In it, plaintiff requests that the court

grant him permission to file his "Objection and Petition in the Nature of a Motion to Strike,"

which the court understands to be his "reply." In fact, plaintiff filed a motion to strike the

Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the same day. Plaintiff's motion to strike was timely

filed, and will be considered by the court.

Case 5:08-cv-02909-HRL Document 63 Filed 09/24/08 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

Plaintiff also requested the court grant him a 45-day continuance "in which to exhaust

his Administrative Remedy as suggested" in the Motion to Dismiss. It appears that plaintiff

does not understand that portion of the brief. The Federal defendants' claim that plaintiff failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the instant action; the defendants do not

suggest that he exhaust them now. Plaintiff's request for continuance is, therefore, denied. The

defendants' motions to dismiss will be heard on October 7, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom

2, 5th floor of the United States District Court, San Jose, as originally noticed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/24/08 _________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:08-cv-02909-HRL Document 63 Filed 09/24/08 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO:

larry@glennwechsler.com 

jgardner@sbgk.com 

james.scharf@usdoj.gov 

gribar@wrightlegal.net 

Gilberto Fernandez, Jr.

1461 Burrows Road 

Campbell, CA 95008 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 9/24/08 

 /s/ mpk 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:08-cv-02909-HRL Document 63 Filed 09/24/08 Page 3 of 3