Carol-Lee Zuvich et al v. City of Los Angeles
Filing
113
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION 87 : The court DENIES Plaintiffs request to strike Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Plaintiffs request to restore to calendar their Motions for Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Plaintiffs request to continue the hearing on Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment to June 4, 2012. In accord with the Magistrate Judges Order, Plaintiffs may also file an expandedopposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, not to exceed 35 pages by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc)
<![CDATA[
1
2
O
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CAROL-LEE ZUVICH, et al.,
12
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
14
CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
15
Defendant.
___________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CV 11-06832 DDP (AJWx)
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION
[Docket No. 87]
16
17
Presently before the court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application
18
to Strike Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and/or to
19
Schedule Both Defendant’s and Plaintiff Zuvich, Dowd and Young’s
20
Motion for Summary Judgment for June 4, 2012; or for Continuance
21
(“Application”).
22
court DENIES the Application in part, GRANTS the Application in
23
part, and adopts the following Order.
24
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the
First, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request to strike
25
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
26
its Opposition, Defendant adequately complied with the relevant
27
document filing and meet and confer requirements for its Motion, as
28
set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Central District
As Defendant explains in
1
Local Rules, and Magistrate Judge’s Case Management Order.
2
Second, the court denies Plaintiffs’ request to “restore[] to
3
calendar” their previously filed Motions for Summary Judgment.
4
Plaintiffs, then appearing in pro per, erroneously filed their
5
Motions to be heard by this court, instead of by the Magistrate
6
Judge.
7
calendar.
8
summary judgment before the court, if they wish to do so.
The Magistrate Judge therefore took the Motions off
Plaintiffs, now represented by counsel, may re-file for
9
Third, the Magistrate Judge has already issued an Order
10
allowing Plaintiffs to file an expanded opposition to Defendant’s
11
Motion for Summary Judgment, not to exceed thirty-five (35) pages.
12
The Order remains in effect.
13
Last, to accommodate Plaintiffs’ counsel, the court grants
14
Plaintiffs’ request to continue the hearing on Defendant’s Motion
15
for Summary Judgment from May 21, 2012 to June 4, 2012 at 10:00
16
a.m.
17
In sum, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to strike
18
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, DENIES Plaintiffs’ request
19
to restore to calendar their Motions for Summary Judgment, and
20
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to continue the hearing on Defendant’s
21
Motion for Summary Judgment to June 4, 2012.
22
Magistrate Judge’s Order, Plaintiffs may also file an expanded
23
opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, not to
24
exceed thirty-five (35) pages.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In accord with the
26
27
Dated: May 9, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
