Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02161/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02161-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VFD CONSULTING, INC., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

21st SERVICES; 21st HOLDINGS, LLC; PAUL

KIRKMAN; and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive.

Defendants.

_______________________________________

No. C 04-2161 SBA

(Consolidated with Case No. 04-2162 SBA)

 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 96, 148, 154]

On December 5, 2005, withoutseeking priorleave ofCourt, counselfor Plaintifffiled the Supplemental

Declaration of Timothy Lord in Support ofOpposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or in the

Alternative for Partial Summary Adjudication ("Supplemental Lord Declaration") [Docket No. 148].

 On December 6, 2005, Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs 21st Services, 21st Holdings, LLC and

Paul Kirkman (collectively, "Defendants") filed a Miscellaneous Application in Support of Request for Leave

to File Objection to Docket Item No. 148 (referred to herein as the "Motion for Leave to File an Objection"

or the "Miscellaneous Application") [Docket No. 154]. Attached as Exhibit 1 to the Motion forLeave to File

an Objection is Defendants' Objection to Docket Item No. 148. 

Havingconsidered Defendants' Motion forLeave to File an Objection, the Court findsthatDefendants

have demonstrated the existence of good cause warranting leave to file their Objection to Docket Item No.

148. The Court also finds it important to note that it is extremely troubled by Plaintiff's counsel's lack of regard

for the Local Rules and this Court's standing orders, including the obligation that all parties meet and confer

priorto filing any motions before the Court. Plaintiff's counsel's decision to file an untimely declaration, without

providing any advance notice to Defendants or to this Court, is unprofessional and has resulted in a

considerable waste of the Court's resources and time. Specifically, the parties' unwillingness to reasonably

discuss or resolve this dispute on their own has necessitated further briefing that this Court must evaluate prior

to rendering a decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel is hereby

admonished for failing to comply with the Local Rules and the Court's standing orders and is expressly

Case 4:04-cv-02161-SBA Document 160 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 2
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

reminded thatfurther failure to comply with any ofthe Court's orders willresult in an order to show cause why

sanctions should not issue. 

Further, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants' Miscellaneous Application in Support ofRequest for

Leave to File Objection to Docket Item No. 148 [Docket No. 154] is GRANTED. Defendants' Objection

to DocketItemNo. 148, which is attached to the Miscellaneous Application as Exhibit 1, shall be deemed filed

as of the date of this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall have until December 9, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. to file

an opposition to Defendants' Objection to Docket Item No. 148. The opposition shall not exceed three (3)

pages and shall be limited to the admissibility of Exhibit K and the specific issues raised in Defendants'

Objection pertaining to Exhibit K. Plaintiff shall not raise any new arguments concerning the Motion for

Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall also file an applicationforfilingExhibit K under seal and a proposed order

that complies with the Local Rules by December 9, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. Upon receipt of Plaintiff's opposition

to Defendants' Objection to DocketItemNo. 148, this matter will be taken under submissionby the Court and

no further briefing may be filed without prior leave of Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or

in the Alternative for Partial Summary Adjudication ("Motion for Summary Judgment") [Docket No. 96] is

VACATED. The Court deems this matter fully submitted on the papers. Ifthe Court later determines that a

hearing is necessary, the clerk will contact the parties and the matter will be placed on calendar for the first

available hearing date in January 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: 12/7/05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02161-SBA Document 160 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 2