First Northern Bank of Dixon et al v. David Hatanaka, et al
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/29/11; Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order shortening time (Dkt. No. 9), is granted. The undersigned shall hear plaintiff's motion to remand on December 15, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25. Defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 10), if any, shall be filed on or before December 8, 2011 (seven days before the hearing). Plaintiff's reply briefing, if any, shall be filed on o r before December 12, 2011. While the undersigned will not be inclined to move the hearing date for plaintiff's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 10), which is now set for December 15, 2011, however, upon defendants' written request, the undersig ned may permit defendants' opposition to that motion to be filed fewer than seven days before that hearing date. Should defendants require additional time to prepare a written opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand (Dkt. No. 10), defendants must file a brief written request explaining the need for additional time.(Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
FIRST NORTHERN BANK OF DIXON,
a California banking corporation,
11
Plaintiff,
No. 2:11-cv-02976 MCE KJN
12
v.
13
14
DAVID HATANAKA; CANDICE
HATANAKA,
15
Defendants.
ORDER
/
16
17
Presently before the court is plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening
18
time in this removed unlawful detainer action, which seeks a hearing date earlier than December
19
22, 2011, in regards to plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Dkt. Nos. 9-10.)1
20
21
According to counsel for plaintiff First Northern Bank of Dixon (“plaintiff”),
defendants David and Candice Hatanaka (“defendants”) verbally agreed to have plaintiff’s
22
1
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff’s filings at the court’s electronic Docket Numbers 9 and 10 could be clearer.
Specifically, the Notice of Motion is identical for both filings, and each filing is styled as an ex parte
motion for an order shortening time. (Dkt. Nos. 9-10.) However, the supporting documents filed
along with the motion at Docket Number 9 indicate that this filing is intended as plaintiff’s ex parte
application for an order shortening the time in which to hear plaintiff’s motion to remand. (Dkt. No.
9.) The supporting documents filed with the motion at Docket Number 10 indicate that this filing
is itself plaintiff’s motion to remand, notwithstanding its being styled as another ex parte request for
an order shortening time.
1
1
motion to remand heard on shortened time, but never returned a signed stipulation to that effect.
2
(Declaration of John McCardle (“McCardle Decl.”), Dkt No. 9-2 at 2-3.)
3
4
Upon review of plaintiff’s ex parte application, pursuant to Eastern District Local
Rule 144(e) and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
5
6
1.
2.
The undersigned shall hear plaintiff’s motion to remand on December 15,
granted.
7
8
Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order shortening time (Dkt. No. 9), is
2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25.
9
3.
Defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 10), if
10
any, shall be filed on or before December 8, 2011 (seven days before the hearing). Plaintiff’s
11
reply briefing, if any, shall be filed on or before December 12, 2011.
12
4. While the undersigned will not be inclined to move the hearing date for
13
plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 10), which is now set for December 15, 2011, however,
14
upon defendants’ written request, the undersigned may permit defendants’ opposition to that
15
motion to be filed fewer than seven days before that hearing date. Should defendants require
16
additional time to prepare a written opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand (Dkt. No. 10),
17
defendants must file a brief written request explaining the need for additional time.2
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 29, 2011
20
21
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
2
Any such request should be made before the filing deadline of December 8, 2011. E. Dist.
Local Rule 144(d) (“Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the required filing date for
the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”).
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?
