Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03265/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-03265-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LILLIAN HYATT,

Plaintiff, No. C 08-3265 PJH

v. ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

PRESBYTERIAN HOMES AND 

SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On February 9, 2010, defendant Northern California Presbyterian Homes and

Services, Inc. (“NCPHS”) filed a motion for summary judgment. On February 10, 2010,

both defendant Morrison Management Specialists, Inc. (“Morrison”) and plaintiff filed a

motion for summary judgment. All three motions were noticed for hearing on March 17,

2010, in accordance with the April 13, 2009 case management and pretrial order. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), the oppositions to the motions were due on

February 24, 2010. Both NCPHS and Morrison filed oppositions to plaintiff’s motion on

February 24. However, at five minutes to midnight on February 24, plaintiff’s counsel

Pamela Cohen filed an administrative motion seeking leave to file a late opposition to

defendants’ motions – specifically, she requested an extension of time to file her opposition

to February 26, 2010, or “any such shorter time as the Court may order.”

Case 4:08-cv-03265-PJH Document 112 Filed 03/01/10 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

Although plaintiff’s counsel’s office is located in this judicial district, Ms. Cohen

asserts, in effect, that she is unfamiliar with the Civil Local Rules of this court. She claims

that she was under the impression that briefing schedule for the pending motions would be

governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, rather than by the local rules.

 Under Civil Local Rule 7-11(b), any opposition to an administrative motion must be

filed no late than four days after the motion is filed. Since plaintiff filed her motion on

February 24, 2010 (barely), defendants had until Monday, March 1, 2010 to oppose the

motion, and the court was precluded from ruling on the motion until defendants had had an

opportunity to respond. However, on February 26, 2010, plaintiff filed her late opposition to

NCPHS’ motion, and on February 26 and 27, 2010, filed her late opposition to Morrison’s

motion. 

Also on February 26, 2010, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s administrative

motion, arguing that ignorance of the rules is not sufficient to show excusable neglect, that

plaintiff failed to file a motion for an order shortening time prior to the prescribed deadline,

and that the procedure she utilized – an administrative motion – is not the proper procedure

when a party is seeking an extension of time. Defendants request additional time to file

their reply briefs, or, in the alterative, request that the court strike plaintiff’s late-filed

opposition briefs. 

Although defendants are correct in asserting that plaintiff has not established

excusable neglect, and has improperly requested an extension of time on the very date the

oppositions were due, the court is unwilling to strike plaintiff’s late-filed opposition briefs,

and is also unable to review the motion papers in less than the two weeks required under

the local rules (from filing of reply brief to hearing date). Accordingly, the court has little

recourse but to continue the hearing date. 

 The date for the hearing on defendants’ motions is CONTINUED to Wednesday,

March 31, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. The reply briefs shall be filed no later than Wednesday,

March 10, 2010.

In addition, the court strongly admonishes ALL of plaintiff’s counsel of record that

Case 4:08-cv-03265-PJH Document 112 Filed 03/01/10 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

they are REQUIRED to familiarize themselves with the local rules of this court, and are also

REQUIRED to follow those rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-03265-PJH Document 112 Filed 03/01/10 Page 3 of 3