Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03375/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03375-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Flywheel Networks, Inc.
Defendant
Yana Zelkind
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YANA ZELKIND,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLYWHEEL NETWORKS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03375-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL 

ARBITRATION, OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, STAY OF 

PROCEEDINGS PENDING 

COMPLETION OF ARBITRATION

Re: Dkt. No. 23

On August 21, 2015, defendant Flywheel Networks, Inc. filed a Motion to Compel 

Arbitration and Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, or, in the Alternative, Stay of Proceedings Pending 

Completion of Arbitration. Dkt. No. 23. On September 12, 2015, plaintiff Yana Zelkind filed her 

response to Flywheel’s motion, eight days after the expiration of the fourteen day window 

provided by Civil Local Rule 7-3. Dkt. No. 30. Flywheel’s subsequent reply argued only that 

Zelkind’s failure to file a timely opposition should be considered a waiver of any objection to 

Flywheel’s motion. Dkt. No. 31.

Plaintiff’s counsel has yet to explain why the opposition was tardy or otherwise to show 

good cause for non-compliance with the Local Rules, or that he nonetheless requests that I 

consider his opposition when ruling on plaintiff’s motion. He shall file a declaration requesting 

such relief no later than September 21, 2015. In the event that I consider the arguments made in 

Zelkind’s opposition brief on the merits, Flywheel may submit a substantive reply addressing the 

merits of Zelkind’s response by September 24, 2015. 

Case 3:15-cv-03375-WHO Document 32 Filed 09/17/15 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

In order to accommodate this extended timeline, the hearing on this motion is continued to 

October 7, 2014 at 2:00pm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03375-WHO Document 32 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2