Powell v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Filing
86
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/28/11 GRANTING plaintiff's 81 Request for extension of time to file opposition to dfts Motion for Summary Judgment; 82 Request to increase page limit is DENIED; opposition briefs due by 7/27/11; reply briefs due by 8/3/11; joint statement of undisputed facts due by 8/3/11; Hearing for 66 , 67 and 78 Motions for Summary Judgment RESET for 8/10/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. All other hearings and deadlines are VACATED pending resolution of cross-motions for summary judgment. (Manzer, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ROBERT L. POWELL,
11
Plaintiff,
vs.
12
13
No. Civ S-09-1857 KJM KJN
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
COMPANY, et al.,
14
ORDER
Defendants.
15
/
16
On June 27, 2011, plaintiff submitted an ex parte application for an extension of
17
time to file his opposition to the separate motions for summary judgment filed by Union Pacific
18
Railroad Company (“UP”) and Tyler Papworth and for a continuance of the hearing date for such
19
motions to July 27, 2011. ECF 81. Hearing on defendants' motions and plaintiff’s motion for
20
summary judgment is currently set for July 13, 2011. According to plaintiff, he was not able to
21
contact counsel for either UP or Mr. Papworth regarding the requested extension and
22
continuance. Plaintiff argues an extension is warranted because the associate responsible for
23
drafting the opposition to defendants’ motions fell ill and has been hospitalized. Defendants
24
oppose plaintiff's ex parte request. ECF 84; ECF 85. They argue that extending the filing
25
deadline for plaintiff's opposition without extending the date for defendants’ opposition to
26
plaintiff’s motion is prejudicial. Furthermore, UP's counsel are not available for hearing on July
27
27, 2011, and begin a trial on August 1, 2011.
28
/////
1
The court finds good cause exists for granting plaintiff's motion while
2
accommodating defendants' concerns. The hearing date for all three motions is continued to
3
August 10, 2011, with opposition briefs to be filed by July 27, 2011, and reply briefs by August
4
3, 2011. In addition, as UP’s counsel and plaintiff’s counsel are aware, this court has adopted a
5
practice of requiring that a joint statement of undisputed facts accompany summary judgment
6
motions. The parties are ordered to submit a joint statement of undisputed facts no later than
7
August 3, 2011.
8
9
10
In light of the foregoing, all other dates set in the above-captioned matter are
hereby VACATED pending resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Finally, plaintiff requests that the court increase the page limit for his opposition
11
because he cannot “sufficiently or adequately” reply to UP’s fifteen page motion within the
12
twenty page limit. ECF 82. Good cause does not exist to grant this request, which is DENIED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 28, 2011.
________/S/Kimberly J. Mueller_________
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER
U.S. District Judge
]]>
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?
