Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00790/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00790-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRIDGEWAY VISTA II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CICILY BRANCH, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-cv-00790-JSW 

ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE ON MOTION TO REMAND 

AND CONFIRMING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE ON EX PARTE 

APPLICATION 

Re: Docket Nos. 5, 16, 19 

This case originally was assigned to Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. On February 

19, 2016, while the case was still assigned to Chief Magistrate Judge Spero, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to remand. (Docket No. 5.) Under the Northern District Civil Local Rules, the opposition 

to the motion would have been due on March 4, 2016, and the reply would have been due on 

March 11, 2016. 

On March 1, 2016, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge. The parties were 

ordered to re-notice all motions for hearing before the judge to whom the case has been 

reassigned. However, instead of re-noticing the motion, Plaintiff re-filed the motion to remand. 

This resulted in the erroneous generation of a revised schedule for the briefing of the motion to 

remand. Additionally, Plaintiff selected the wrong hearing time for the motion. This Court’s civil 

law and motion calendar is held at 9:00 a.m. on Fridays. 

On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Application in which it asks the Court to sua sponte

remand the action or to hear its motion to remand on shortened time. (Docket No. 19.) The Court 

construes that motion as a motion for administrative relief pursuant to Northern District Civil 

Local Rule 7-11. Defendant’s opposition to that motion is due on March 8, 2016. See N.D. Cal. 

Civil L.R. 7-11(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Case 4:16-cv-00790-JSW Document 22 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

mo

Fed

De

rem

opp

be 

com

Da

Pending

otion to rema

deral Courth

In light

efendant’s pr

mand. Accor

position to t

due on Mar

The par

mply with al

IT IS S

ated: March 2

g a ruling on

and remains 

house, 1301 C

t of the confu

ro se status, t

rdingly, pen

the motion t

rch 16, 2016

rties shall ca

ll such rules 

SO ORDER

2, 2016 

n Plaintiff’s E

on calendar 

Clay Street, 

usion caused

the Court HE

nding a ruling

to remand s

6.

arefully revie

and orders.

RED. 

2

Ex Parte Ap

on April 8, 

Oakland, Ca

d by Plaintiff

EREBY MO

g on the mot

shall be due

ew this Cour

pplication for

 2016, at 9:0

alifornia. 

ff’s re-filing t

ODIFIES the

tion for an o

e on March 

rt’s Civil Lo

JE

Un

r an Order to

00 a.m. in C

the motion, 

e briefing sch

order shorten

9, 2016, and

cal Rules an

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

o Shorten Ti

Courtroom 5,

and in light 

hedule on th

ning time, De

d Plaintiff’s

nd standing o

WHITE 

District Judg

me, the 

, 2nd Floor, 

of 

he motion to 

efendant’s 

s reply shall

orders and 

ge 

l

Case 4:16-cv-00790-JSW Document 22 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 2