You're viewing Docket Item 11 from the case Zut v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i



n
U

a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case3:13-cv-02372-TEH Document11 Filed07/11/13 Page1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELIZABETH ZUT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARRAH’S ENTERTAINMENT,
INC., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C13-2372 TEH
ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING
AND HEARING SCHEDULE
AND CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue on May 31, 2013. Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due
on June 14, 2013. No opposition or statement of non-opposition was filed.

The Court’s courtroom deputy telephoned Plaintiff’s counsel on July 8, 2013, to

inquire about the missing filing, and Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently filed a motion to extend
time to file the opposition. Counsel states that his law firm changed email addresses when it
upgraded its computer systems approximately two months ago, and that he did not realize
that the discontinued email address was the address of record in this Court’s electronic case
filing system. Brady Decl. ¶ 6. Counsel further states that he has “remed[ied] that problem.”
Id. ¶ 7. Although Defendants’ counsel refused to sign a stipulated request to extend the
briefing and hearing schedule, she stated that she would not oppose Plaintiff’s request to
extend the deadline for filing an opposition. Id. ¶¶ 7-8.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed request. Plaintiff shall file an opposition
to the motion to dismiss or transfer venue on or before August 5, 2013. Defendant shall file
a reply on or before August 19, 2013. The motion hearing is continued from July 22, 2013,
to September 23, 2013, at 10:00 AM.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

t
r
u
o
C


t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D

s
e
t
a
t
S
d
e
t
i



n
U

a
i
n
r
o
f
i
l
a
C




f
o

t
c
i
r
t
s
i
D
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N

e
h
t

r
o
F

Case3:13-cv-02372-TEH Document11 Filed07/11/13 Page2 of 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case management conference is continued from

August 26, 2013, to October 28, 2013, at 1:30 PM. All related deadlines are continued
accordingly.

Finally, the Court considered issuing an order to show cause as to why Plaintiff’s
counsel should not be sanctioned. While it credits counsel’s declaration concerning the
discontinued email address, counsel – who states that he is “familiar with the Northern
District’s notification through PACER,” id. ¶ 4 – inexplicably failed to check the docket for
information on this case after receiving a hard copy of Defendants’ notice of removal on or
about May 28, 2013, id. ¶ 3. Acting diligently, reasonable counsel who “expected to receive
notification of the case’s assignment and new case number,” id. ¶ 4, would not have done
nothing for six weeks and assumed that no activity was occurring. The Court opts not to
impose sanctions at this time, but counsel is put on notice that he is expected to follow all
Local Rules and standing orders of this Court, subject to sanctions for future violations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/11/13


THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28