Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04098/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04098-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATHY BURGESS, ELUM BURGESS, and

SHELA BURGESS, by and through her guardian

ad litem, CATHY BURGESS,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ALAMEDA

COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C01-04098 MJJ

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

Pending before the Court is Defendants Ophelia Badgal, Navdeep Barn, and Donna Payne’s

(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #146).

Plaintiffs Cathy Burgess, Elum Burgess, and Shela Burgess (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have filed an

Opposition (Doc. #152), to which Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. #155). 

In their Motion, Defendants urge the Court to dismiss Cathy Burgess’s claims against them

because they are time-barred. However, as Plaintiffs point out in their Opposition, aside from making

this conclusory argument, Defendants wholly omitted any discussion regarding the limitations periods

applicable to each of Ms. Burgess’s claims. In an attempt to remedy this deficiency, Defendants then

set forth the limitations periods that they contend govern Ms. Burgess’s claims in their Reply. Because

Defendants failed to include this information in their Motion, Plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to

respond. Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiffs to file a Sur-Reply, not exceeding 10 pages,

addressing the statutes of limitations arguments raised in Defendants’ Reply. Plaintiffs shall file their

Case 3:01-cv-04098-MJJ Document 156 Filed 02/06/06 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

Sur-Reply by Thursday, February 9, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2006. 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-04098-MJJ Document 156 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2