Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03884/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03884-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

OSAHON OMOREGIE,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-3884 PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

BOARDWALK AUTO CENTER, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to shorten time, filed in connection with plaintiff’s

pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions against defendants. Plaintiff seeks to have his

motion for Rule 11 sanctions heard on November 14, 2007, despite the fact that the 14th is

less than 35 days from the date on which plaintiff filed his motion. 

Preliminarily, the court notes that plaintiff has misconstrued the Local Rules of this

court. He is correct that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, plaintiff was required to

give notice of his Rule 11 motion – or the basis therefor – to defendants at least 21 days

prior to the filing of his motion with the court, in order to give defendants time to cure the

defect or conduct complained of by plaintiff. However, this does not mean that plaintiff is

excused from following the local rules, which require 35 days’ notice for hearings. See Civ.

L. R. 7-2(a). Accordingly, even if plaintiff served his motion on defendants on September

28, and properly waited 21 days before filing his motion with the court, he was required to

file his motion with a noticed hearing date at least 35 days out. 

Not only did plaintiff fail to timely file his motion, he also chose to needlessly

consume judicial resources by insisting to court staff that the motion was timely filed

Case 4:07-cv-03884-PJH Document 75 Filed 10/26/07 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

pursuant to the local rules, despite court staff’s advisement to the contrary. Plaintiff is

hereby placed on notice that such behavior shall not be tolerated in future. 

 Notwithstanding the above, and in view of the fact the defendant, in an abundance

of caution, has already filed an opposition to the motion, the court hereby GRANTS

plaintiff’s request to shorten time. Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions shall therefore be

heard on November 14, 2007, along with the other motions pending in this case that are

set for hearing on that date. Plaintiff’s reply brief in support of his motion is due no later

than November 1, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03884-PJH Document 75 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 2