Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06583-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

TERRY D. HAMILTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

)

HENRY W. WILLMS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02 6583 AWI SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE REQUEST TO

CONTINUE HEARING DATE

ORDER MOVING HEARING DATE

OF JUNE 27, 2005 TO JULY 5, 2005

(Document # 260)

Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the Seventh Claim for Relief is

pending in this action and is set for oral argument to be heard on June 27, 2005. On June 9,

2005, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte request to continue the hearing date for one week. Plaintiffs’

attorney states in his declaration supporting his request that Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ request

to continue. 

Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by order of court an act is

required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause

shown may at any time in its discretion (1) with or without motion or notice order

the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period

originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made

after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the

failure to act was the result of excusable neglect; but it may not extend the time

for taking any action under Rules 50(b) and (c)(2), 52(b), 59(b), (d) and (e), and

60(b), except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b). In their motion, Plaintiffs show good cause for a one week continuance. 

The pending motion concerns the testimony of James C. Bateman, and Plaintiffs’ attorney only

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 261 Filed 06/13/05 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

received a copy of Mr. Bateman’s deposition transcript on June 7, 2005. Further, Plaintiffs’

attorney is a sole practitioner and has recently had several other cases requiring his appearance in

court. 

Accordingly, GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Plaintiffs’ ex-parte request to continue the hearing date is GRANTED; 

2. The previously set hearing date of June 27, 2005, is VACATED, and the parties shall not

appear at that time; and 

3. Hearing on Defendants’ pending motion is set for July 5, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06583-AWI-SMS Document 261 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2