From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brimer v. Amash Imports, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 23, 2011
Case No. C 11-05391 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C 11-05391 EMC

11-23-2011

RUSSELL BRIMER, Plaintiff, v. AMASH IMPORTS, INC.; MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL TOOLS; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Laurence D. Haveson, State Bar No. 152631 Brian Johnson, State Bar No. 235965 THE CHANLER GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff RUSSELL BRIMER


Laurence D. Haveson, State Bar No. 152631

Brian Johnson, State Bar No. 235965

THE CHANLER GROUP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

RUSSELL BRIMER

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

WHEREAS, on November 8, 2011, Defendants Amash Imports, Inc. and Michigan Industrial Tools ("Defendants") filed and served a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition of Plaintiff Russell Brimer ("Plaintiff) to the motion was due for filing and service not more than 14 days after the motion was served and filed;

WHEREAS, on November 17, 2011, this case was reassigned to the Honorable Edward M. Chen, United States District Judge;

WHEREAS, the Court informed the parties that all matters presently scheduled for hearing are vacated and should be re-noticed for hearing before the Honorable Edward M. Chen;

WHEREAS, on November 18, 2011, Defendants filed an Amended Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, stating in the Amended Notice that other than the change of hearing date, the moving papers remain unchanged; and

WHEREAS, Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-7(d) provides that unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the continuance of a hearing of a motion does not extend the time for filing and serving the opposing papers or reply papers, and it is uncertain whether Defendants' Amended Notice of Motion filed after reassignment of this action to the Honorable Edward M. Chen amounts to a "continuance of the hearing" on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their designated counsel that:

1. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction shall be filed and served not more than 14 days after Defendants' Amended Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction was filed and served; and
2. Defendants' reply to Plaintiff's opposition must be filed and served not more than 7 days after the opposition is served and filed.

THE CHANLER GROUP

Laurence D. Haveson

Attorneys for Plaintiff

RUSSELL BRIMER

BUCHALTER NEMER

Michael B. Fisher

Attorneys for Defendants

MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL TOOLS and

AMASH IMPORTS. INC.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation above, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction shall be filed and served not more than 14 days after Defendants' Amended Notice of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction was filed and served; and (by 12/2/11)
2. Defendants' reply to Plaintiff's opposition must be filed and served not more than 7 days after the opposition is served and filed. (By 12/9/11)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Edward M. Chen


Summaries of

Brimer v. Amash Imports, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 23, 2011
Case No. C 11-05391 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)
Case details for

Brimer v. Amash Imports, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RUSSELL BRIMER, Plaintiff, v. AMASH IMPORTS, INC.; MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Nov 23, 2011

Citations

Case No. C 11-05391 EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011)