Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00815/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00815-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOUANG SAECHO, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LANDRY’S INC, a Delaware corporation,

and McCORMICK & SCHMICK

RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware

corporation,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-00815 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST

TO EXTEND BRIEFING

SCHEDULE AND SHORTENING

TIME FOR PLAINTIFF’S

RESPONSE TO REQUEST TO

CONTINUE HEARING

Defendant McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp. has filed a motion for

administrative relief seeking to extend the deadlines for its opposition and plaintiff’s reply by

one week, because the witnesses from whom it intends to submit declarations are attending a

conference that began on February 8. McCormick & Schmick knew of this potential conflict

when the Court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file her class

certification motion in November, yet waited until February 8 to request the extension. There is

no good cause to adjust the briefing schedule, so that request is DENIED.

McCormick & Schmick also seeks to continue the hearing, which the Court continued to

March 10, because lead counsel will be unavailable. Plaintiff shall please respond to

McCormick & Schmick’s request to continue the hearing by FEBRUARY 10 AT NOON. For now,

the hearing remains on calendar for MARCH 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-00815-WHA Document 77 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 1