Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02329/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02329-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC
Defendant
Michelle R. Chulick-Perez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

MICHELLE R. CHULICK-PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES 

CALIFORNIA, LLC and DOES 1 through 

75, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-02329-TLN-DAD

ORDER

Plaintiff requests an extension of time (ECF No. 18) to file a late opposition to 

Defendant’s motions to dismiss (ECF No. 15) and to strike (ECF No. 16) portions of Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint. Defendant’s motions were filed on June 24, 2014. The hearing date 

was set for July 31, 2014. The Court submitted the matter without oral argument on July 25, 

2014, at which point Plaintiff sought to file its late opposition.1 

An email address for Plaintiff’s counsel appears on the Court’s distribution list for notices 

of activity in the instant case. Plaintiff’s counsel states it has received all prior notices of activity. 

The Court does not look kindly upon counsel’s excuse that electronic notice of docketing activity 

 

1

See Local Rule 230(c) (“Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and 

served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date.”)

Case 2:13-cv-02329-TLN-DB Document 22 Filed 08/01/14 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

was never received. Furthermore, the Court’s order dismissing the original complaint provided 

that Defendant was to file a responsive pleading within 21 days of receipt of service of the first 

amended complaint. Thus, Plaintiff should have been on notice of filings by Defendant even 

without an electronic notice of activity from this Court. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 18) to file a late opposition to 

Defendant’s motions to dismiss and to strike portions of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See 

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. § 6(b)(1)(B). The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s opposition (ECF 

No. 19) filed on July 25, 2014. 

Dated: July 31, 2014

Case 2:13-cv-02329-TLN-DB Document 22 Filed 08/01/14 Page 2 of 2