Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01726/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01726-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO GUILARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREA MONTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01726-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME; CONTINUING HEARING ON 

DEFENDANT MONTI'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 38

Before the Court is plaintiff Eduardo Guilarte's "Application for Order [to] Extend 

Time," filed November 23, 2016. Defendant Andrea Monti ("Monti") has not filed a 

response thereto. Having read and considered the application,1the Court rules as 

follows.

In his application, plaintiff seeks an extension of time to respond to Monti's motion 

to dismiss; specifically, plaintiff seeks an extension from November 23, 2016, to 

November 25, 2016, for the asserted reason that his counsel was "in the hospital." (See

Appl. at 1:26-27.) Plaintiff, through counsel, filed the application at literally the eleventh 

hour, specifically, at 11:59 p.m. on November 23, 2016. Moreover, the application was 

filed one minute before the start of a national holiday, and, as set forth on this District's 

 

1Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of his application. 

Nonetheless, the Court has considered it. For future reference, plaintiff is reminded that, 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) and the Court's Standing Orders, parties are 

required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed 

electronically.

Case 3:16-cv-01726-MMC Document 40 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

website, the undersigned was unavailable the following day as well. Lastly, as the 

deadline for any opposition to the application was not due until November 28, 2016, see

Civil L.R. 6-3(b) (providing any opposition to motion to change time must be filed "no later 

than 4 days after receiving the motion"),

2

the application ordinarily could not be resolved 

until a date after the date of the proposed extension.

Nevertheless, in light of the stated reason for an extension, the Court hereby 

GRANTS the application, as follows:

1. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than December 2, 2016.

2. Monti's reply, if any, shall be filed no later than December 16, 2016.

3. The hearing on the motion is continued from December 16, 2016, to January 6, 

2017, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

2Although plaintiff characterizes his application as "ex parte," the Local Rules of 

this District prohibit a motion from being brought on an ex parte basis in the absence of 

the moving party's having identified "the statute, rule or order which permits the use of an 

ex parte motion to obtain the relief sought." See Civil L.R. 7-10. Plaintiff failed to cite any 

such statute, rule or order, nor could plaintiff, as none exists.

Case 3:16-cv-01726-MMC Document 40 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2