Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02389/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02389-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALAN BARCELONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; LARRY

WALLACE, Director, DOJ 

Division of Law Enforcement, 

in his representative

capacity; NATHAN DAVALLE, DOJ

Special Agent in Charge, in 

his representative capacity; 

BRENT E. ORICK, DOJ Special 

Agent in Charge, in his 

representative capacity; and 

CATHERINE GAUTHIER, DOJ 

Special Agent Supervisor, in 

her representative capacity,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-02389-GEB-DAD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE 

HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On August 17, 2015, Defendants filed a summary judgment 

motion, which is noticed for hearing on September 14, 2014. (See

ECF No. 8.) On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ex parte 

application, in which he seeks to continue the hearing date on 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion until November 2, 2015 or 

later to “give [Plaintiff] reasonable opportunity to file . . . 

his own cross-motion [so that] the motions could be heard 

together and the case could potentially be resolved in its 

entirety, which would be best for judicial economy.” (Pl.’s Appl. 

Case 2:14-cv-02389-TLN-DB Document 11 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2:1-5, 2:18-22, ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff contends “[g]ood cause 

exists for [the] continuance pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure[,]” arguing: 

On or about June 10, 2015, [Plaintiff’s] 

counsel . . . and counsel for Defendants 

spoke on the phone, during which time, each 

side mentioned an intent to seek summary 

judgment. While counsel for Defendants 

indicated she would file her motion “sooner

rather than later,” the parties did not 

discuss dates for filing or hearing a summary

judgment motion and [Plaintiff’s] 

counsel . . . did not hear from Defendants’ 

counsel again until being served with the 

motion. Defendants’ counsel did not attempt 

to meet and confer to coordinate the summary 

judgment hearing date. 

(Id. at 2:6-14.) Plaintiff further argues that “[a]n extension 

[of the hearing date] . . . would not prejudice Defendants” and 

indicates his “opposition to Defendants’ Motion may remain due on 

the date currently required (August 31, 2015) or a future date 

set by the Court.” (Id. at 3:21-22, 3:27-4:1.)

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for an extension, 

rejoining that “Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for any 

continuance.” (Defs.’ Opp’n 2:1, ECF No. 10.) Defendants argue:

Plaintiff has had plenty of time to prepare 

and file his own motion, and knew that 

defendants were going to move for summary 

judgment. Defendants would be prejudiced by 

the continuance because they would then have 

to file an opposition to plaintiff’s motion 

before defendants’ motion was heard, 

expending time and resources. . . .

Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the 

denial of the application. Assuming 

defendants’ motion is denied, plaintiff has 

plenty of time to file his own motion for 

summary judgment.

(Id. at 2:1-10.)

Case 2:14-cv-02389-TLN-DB Document 11 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiff has not shown sufficient justification for 

the requested extension. Therefore, Plaintiff’s ex parte 

application is DENIED. 

Dated: August 25, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02389-TLN-DB Document 11 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 3