Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05949/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05949-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

OSCAR RODRIGUEZ JR. dba PACIFIC

CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

AMERICAN EXPRESS, ADVANTA, )

BANK ONE, BANK OF AMERICA, )

CITIBANK, DISCOVER, FORD )

CREDIT, HOME DEPOT, LOWES )

COMPANIES, INC., INTERNAL )

REVENUE SERVICE, NEXTEL )

COMMUNICATIONS, PINE )

MOUNTAIN LAKE, U.S. BANKCORP, )

VALLEY FIRST CREDIT UNION, )

WELLS FARGO BANK, NBMA, and )

DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-5949 AWI LJO

CORRECTED ORDER

VACATING HEARING ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SCHEDULED FOR

NOVEMBER 14, 2005, AND

CONTINUING DEADLINES

FOR FILING OF PLAINTIFF’S

OPPOSITION AND

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY

BRIEFING

In this action for damages and relief under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act,

plaintiff Oscar Rodriguez, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) has moved to continue the hearing on motions for

summary judgment by defendants Citibank, Bank of America, American Express, and Valley

First Credit Union (collectively “Defendants”). The court concludes, based on its examination

of the docket report, that the Defendants who have filed motions for summary judgment

represent the named Defendants who remain in this case with the possible exception of Nextel

Communications, who is a defendant named in the caption in this case but whose name does

Case 1:03-cv-05949-AWI-LJO Document 178 Filed 11/22/05 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

not appear at all in the docket report. The court presumes at this point that Nextel

Communications is not currently a party to this case.

Plaintiff has requested a continuation of the proceedings because of being called to

active duty in the Air Force. Defendants have not objected. 

THEREFORE, good cause appearing and in the absence of objection, Plaintiff’s motion

to continue proceedings pertaining to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is HEREBY

GRANTED. Further briefing pertaining to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment is due

as follows:

1. Any opposition by Plaintiff to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment shall be

filed and served not later than Friday, December 9, 2005. If Plaintiff contends that

Nextel Communications remains a party to this case, Plaintiff shall so state and make

reference to documents currently before the court that establish Nextel Communications

status as a party.

2. Any reply by Defendants to Plaintiff’s opposition to their motions for summary

judgment shall be filed and served not later than Friday, December 16, 2005.

3. The November 14, 2005, date for hearing on Defendants’ motions for summary

judgment is HEREBY VACATED. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the court finds

the matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. Should the court determine

oral argument would be helpful in resolving an issue, the parties will be notified not

less than two weeks in advance of any scheduled hearing date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05949-AWI-LJO Document 178 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2