Marcelo v. Perfumania, Inc.

Full title: ERLINDA MARCELO, Plaintiff, v. PERFUMANIA, INC.; MAGNIFIQUE PARFUMES AND…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

Date published: Oct 28, 2011

Case No: C 10-4740 SBA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2011)

Opinion

Case No: C 10-4740 SBA.

October 28, 2011

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED EX PARTE APPLICATION

SAUNDRA ARMSTRONG, District Judge

Defendants have filed an ex parte application to extend the law and motion cut-off of December 13, 2011. Specifically, Defendants indicate that they intend to file a dispositive motion, but that the Court's law and motion is full on that date. In addition, Defendants state that their proposed extension will facilitate the parties' settlement discussions. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants' request. Good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants' ex parte application to extend the law and motion cut off is GRANTED.

2. Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment¹ by January 3, 2012. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by no later than January 17, 2012, and Defendants' reply shall be filed by no later than January 24, 2012. The motion hearing will take place on February 7, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. The Court, in its discretion, may resolve the motion without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The parties are advised to check the Court's website to determine whether a court appearance is required.

1 Defendants' ex parte application makes reference to "motions for summary judgment and/or partial summary judgment and a motion to exclude expert witnesses. The Court's Standing Orders permit only one summary judgment motion per side. To the extent that Defendants intend to raise the issue of Plaintiff's experts at this juncture, they shall do so in the same brief as their motion for summary judgment.

3. The Order for Pretrial Preparation, filed April 15, 2011, (Dkt. 26) is MODIFIED as follows:²

2 All motions in limine submitted by each party shall be set forth in a single memorandum, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length. Responses to the motions in limine shall be set forth in a single memorandum, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length. Reply briefs shall not exceed six (6) pages. No motions in limine will be considered unless the parties certify that they met and conferred prior to the filing of such motion. Any request to exceed the page limit must be submitted prior to the deadline for these briefs and must be supported by a showing of good cause, along with a certification that the applicant has met and conferred with the opposing party.

a. Pretrial preparation due: 3/13/12 b. Motions in limine/objections to evidence: 3/20/12 c. Responses to motions in limine/ objections to evidence: 3/27/12 d. Replies in support of motions in limine/ objections to evidence: 4/3/12 e. Pretrial conference: 4/17/12 at 1:00 p.m. f. Trial date (5-6 day jury trial): 4/30/12 at 8:30 a.m. g. Mandatory settlement conference: 2/13/12-3/9/12 4. No further requests to continue the trial date or any other scheduled dates or deadlines will be considered absent exigent and unforeseen circumstances.

5. This Order terminates Docket 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.