From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oracle v. Santa Cruz County Planning Department

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Oct 5, 2010
Case Number 5:09-cv-00373-JF/PVT (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010)

Opinion

Case Number 5:09-cv-00373-JF/PVT.

October 5, 2010


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING SET FOR OCTOBER 8, 2010 [Docket No. 76]

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.


Plaintiffs Elan and Reverend Oracle ("Plaintiffs") move pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3 to continue the hearing date of the parties' motions in limine, which currently is October 8, 2010. Defendants have not filed opposition, and Plaintiffs' attorney indicates that Defendants have agreed not to oppose the instant motion. (Declaration of Andrew Pierce ISO Mot. at ¶ 7.) The hearing originally was set for September 10, 2010. In an order dated September 8, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to continue that hearing date because resolution of a pending motion for reconsideration may affect the scope of the matters at issue. Because the motion for reconsideration remains under submission at this time, Plaintiffs' motion to continue the instant hearing date will be granted. The hearing is hereby reset to October 15, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: 10/5/10


Summaries of

Oracle v. Santa Cruz County Planning Department

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Oct 5, 2010
Case Number 5:09-cv-00373-JF/PVT (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010)
Case details for

Oracle v. Santa Cruz County Planning Department

Case Details

Full title:ELAN and REVEREND ORACLE, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY PLANNING…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Oct 5, 2010

Citations

Case Number 5:09-cv-00373-JF/PVT (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2010)

Citing Cases

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. Ott

Both dictionaries make explicit the view that fences, like buildings, are a subcategory of the broadly…