Opinion ID: 202096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: January and February 2003

Text: 5 Shortly after counsel returned to the country, she filed one dual-purpose motion on January 15th, requesting that the court postpone the pre-trial conference and reiterat[ing] her request for a separate extension of time to oppose summary judgment. On January 27th, the district court responded to the motion with the following docket entry: Granted. The Clerk of the Court shall reschedule the pretrial conference.... Although the order did not refer specifically to the motion to extend time for the summary judgment opposition, counsel interpreted the order as a confirmation that her request for extra time to file the opposition had been granted. 6 Counsel proceeded to draft an opposition. While checking the electronic docket on Saturday, February 1st, in preparation for filing her motion, counsel found that the district court had granted Wal-Mart's summary judgment motion two days earlier, treating it as unopposed. The following Monday, counsel filed Pérez-Cordero's opposition to summary judgment and a motion to set aside the order the district court had issued on January 30th.