Opinion
No. 13-cv-00304-NC
03-14-2013
ROBERT P. MULLER, an individual, CESAR MIANI, an individual, YOLANDA MIANI, an individual, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. AUTO MISSION, LTD., a corporation, dba Hayward Toyota; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
Re: Dkt. No. 13
On February 15, 2013, defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation filed a motion to compel arbitration which is set for hearing on April 3, 2013. Dkt. No. 5. On February 25, defendant Auto Mission Ltd. filed a joinder in the motion. Dkt. No. 12. The deadline to file any opposition to the motion was March 1, 2013. On March 14, 2013, plaintiffs submitted a request for an extension of time to submit their opposition for the reason that the response date was inadvertently miscalendared. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiffs' request is not accompanied by a declaration or a proposed order as required by the applicable local rules, and fails to describe the efforts plaintiffs have made to obtain a stipulation to the time change. See Civ. L.R. 6-1(b) ("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."); Civ. L.R. 6-3(a) (a motion to change time "must be accompanied by a proposed order and by a declaration"). Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice plaintiffs' request for an extension of time for failure to comply with the local rules. Plaintiffs may resubmit their request in compliance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 6-2 or Civil L.R. 6-3. The motion must state the specific extension of time sought by plaintiffs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge