From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rashdan v. Geissberger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Jan 30, 2012
Case No: C 10-634 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012)

Opinion

Case No: C 10-634 SBA Dkt. 112

01-30-2012

DALIA RASHDAN (MOHAMED), Plaintiff, v. MARC GEISSBERGER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

On January 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Shorten Time for a Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Pre-Trial Scheduling Order to Continue the Trial Date and Associated Deadline. Dkt. 112. In her application to shorten time, Plaintiff seeks to have her motion to amend heard on February 6, 2012.

Plaintiff's motion to shorten time is improper because a noticed motion is not the proper vehicle to submit her request to the Court. Civil Local Rule 6-1 provides:

A Court order is required for any enlargement or shortening of time that alters an event or deadline already fixed by Court order or that involves papers required to be filed or lodged with the Court (other than an initial response to the complaint). A request for a Court order enlarging or shortening time may be made by written stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 or motion pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-3. Any stipulated request or motion which affects a hearing or proceeding on the Court's calendar must be filed no later than 14 days before the scheduled event.
Civ. L.R. 6-1(b) (emphasis added). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff desires to continue deadlines in the Court's pretrial scheduling order and the trial date—i.e., "event[s] or deadline[s] already fixed by the Court," she should file a motion to change time under Rule 6-3, not a noticed motion under Civil Local Rule 7-2. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's procedurally improper motion to shorten time. See Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court's denial of motion to tax costs which was not in compliance with the court's local rules). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time is DENIED without prejudice to the submission of a motion under Civil Local Rule 6-3. This Order terminates Docket 112.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Rashdan v. Geissberger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION
Jan 30, 2012
Case No: C 10-634 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Rashdan v. Geissberger

Case Details

Full title:DALIA RASHDAN (MOHAMED), Plaintiff, v. MARC GEISSBERGER, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Date published: Jan 30, 2012

Citations

Case No: C 10-634 SBA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012)