From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pedraza v. Alameda Unified Sch. Dist.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
Case No.: C05-04977 (VRW) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

Opinion

Case No.: C05-04977 (VRW)

11-15-2011

LINDA PEDRAZA and FRANCISCO PEDRAZA, individually and on behalf of their son M.P., Plaintiffs, v. ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS AND CONSOLIDATED CASES

STUBBS & LEONE KATHERINE A. ALBERTS, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant and Counter Claimant ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,


LOUIS A. LEONE, ESQ. (CSB # 099874)

CLAUDIA LEED, ESQ, (CSB # 122676)

KATHERINE ALBERTS, ESQ. (CSB # 212825)

STUBBS & LEONE

Attorneys for Defendant/Counter Claimaint

ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

ON DAMAGES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

(Local Rule 7-11)

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, Counter Claimant ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT hereby moves this Court for administrative relief for an extension of time to file its motion for summary judgment on damages related to its Counter Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's order dated October 20, 2011, the District had one month, or until November 20, 2011, to file its motion for summary judgment as to damages. By this motion and for good cause shown below, the District requests a 10 day extension, until November 30, 2011, to file its motion for summary judgment.

Good cause exists for this extension on the grounds that counsel for the District's time and attention was unexpectedly required on other cases. The District's counsel, who is the only one at the firm with knowledge of the issues in this matter, had to draft two unexpected emergency writ petitions in two different state cases. These two petitions took counsel's undivided attention for the past three weeks. Therefore, counsel has not had time to review and analyze the evidence and issues regarding the District's motion for summary judgment as to damages. The evidence and witnesses regarding the District's motion date back to 2003. Many witnesses have moved or changed jobs and have been difficult to locate. These witnesses are necessary to determine which of the various costs the District incurred due to the Counter Defendants' breach of the settlement agreement at issue. The additional 10 days requested are necessary to insure that a proper motion for summary judgment is brought before the Court.

Therefore, the District request that the Court grant it a ten (10) day extension of time to file its motion for summary judgment as to damages on its counter claims.

Respectfully submitted,

STUBBS & LEONE

KATHERINE A. ALBERTS, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant and Counter Claimant

ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Defendant and Counter Claimant ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT moved pursuant to Local Rule 7-11 for administrative relief. The Court having considered the matter hereby GRANTS the motion and orders as follows:

Defendant and Counter-Claimant ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT is hereby granted a 10 day extension of time in which to file its motion for summary judgment as to damages on its counter claims. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment is now due on November 30, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hon. Claudia Wilken

United States District Chief Judge


Summaries of

Pedraza v. Alameda Unified Sch. Dist.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 15, 2011
Case No.: C05-04977 (VRW) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)
Case details for

Pedraza v. Alameda Unified Sch. Dist.

Case Details

Full title:LINDA PEDRAZA and FRANCISCO PEDRAZA, individually and on behalf of their…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

Case No.: C05-04977 (VRW) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)