Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06121-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE COMMITTEE CONCERNING )

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF MODESTO, COUNTY OF )

STANISLAUS, AND STANISLAUS )

COUNTY SHERIFF, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 04-6121 AWI DLB

ORDER VACATING

HEARING DATE OF

NOVEMBER 6, 2006, AND

HOLDING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN

ABEYANCE

Defendants City of Modesto, et al. (“Defendants”) have noticed a motion for

summary judgment. The motion was scheduled for oral argument to be held on November 6,

2006. The court is recently informed that Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint on

October 27, 2006. The hearing on that motion is set before the magistrate judge on

December 15, 2006.

Generally, it is the practice of the court to deny as moot any dispositive motions that

are pending at the time the complaint is amended. The court’s need to manage its scarce

judicial resources efficiently prevents the court from giving consideration to arguments of the

parties that may be mooted by further amendment of the complaint. Consequently, the court

must decline Plaintiff’s invitation to schedule consideration of the motion for leave to amend

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 164 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 2
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

and the motion for summary judgment at the same hearing. Rather, the court will hold

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in abeyance until the magistrate judge’s ruling on

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint is issued. Upon notice of the magistrate judge’s

ruling, this court will either deny the pending motion for summary judgment as moot if the

motion to amend is granted, or will reset the date for consideration of oral arguments on

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment if the motion to amend is denied.

The parties may advance the date for oral argument on Plaintiff’s motion to amend

the complaint in a manner agreeable to the parties and subject to availability of the magistrate

court. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the previously set hearing date of

November 6, 2006, is VACATED, and no party shall appear at that time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06121-LJO -DLB Document 164 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2