From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lasic v. Moreno

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 25, 2006
No. 2:05-CV-0161-MCE-JFM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2006)

Opinion

No. 2:05-CV-0161-MCE-JFM.

August 25, 2006


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application seeking a one day extension to file Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff seeks this extension based on a computer malfunction. Plaintiff timely filed his Separate Statement of Facts in Dispute and Additional Facts in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

On August 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed his Opposition. On that same day, Defendant Dana Moreno filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition Brief on the ground that his Opposition was filed in violation of this Court's local rules and Pretrial Scheduling Order. In addition, Defendant Moreno requests permission to file her Reply with a page limit of 20 pages and an extension to file her Reply on September 6, 2006. Good cause have been shown therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for a one day extension to file his Opposition. The Court DENIES Defendant Moreno's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition. However, the Court GRANTS Defendant Moreno permission to file her Reply with a page limit of 20 pages and an extension to file her Reply to and including September 6, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lasic v. Moreno

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 25, 2006
No. 2:05-CV-0161-MCE-JFM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2006)
Case details for

Lasic v. Moreno

Case Details

Full title:DAVID LASIC, JR., an individual, Plaintiff, v. DANA MORENO; UNITED STATES…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 25, 2006

Citations

No. 2:05-CV-0161-MCE-JFM (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2006)