Opinion
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., Eduardo G. Roy (State Bar # 146316), Rodney R. Patula (State Bar # 182052), Evan S. Nadel (State Bar # 213230), Daniel T. Balmat (State Bar # 230504), San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
McInerney & Dillon, P.C., Timothy L. McInerney (State Bar # 124807), LeCarie S. Whitfield (State Bar # 192186), Gregory J. Gangitano (State Bar # 226987), Oakland, CA.
William J. McGahan (State Bar # 165706), General Counsel, F.W. Spencer & Son, Inc., Oakland, CA, Attorneys for Defendants.
JOINT APPLICATION FOR 48-HOUR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR PRE-TRIAL FILINGS January 22, 2007
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
In light of the Court's Order, served by the Electronic Case Facility at 3:39 p.m. today, denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration concerning summary judgment on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim, the parties hereby jointly request an extension of time of 48 hours to file the joint pre-trial conference statement and other pre-trial filings specified in the Court's prior case management order.
Because the Court had ordered defendants to file their opposition to the motion for reconsideration by January 10, plaintiff did not anticipate that the Court would decide the motion today. Consequently, plaintiff drafted its portions of the joint pre-trial conference statement with the assumption that the motion for reconsideration still would be pending at the time of filing and, thus, the pending motion and potential for reinstatement of the unjust enrichment claim profoundly affected the content of the pre-trial submissions. In addition, during the parties' meet and confer conferences on pre-trial submissions, they conferred under impression that this motion was still pending and would not be decided at the time of filing those submissions. The parties both agree that an extension of time of 48 hours to file the pre-trial submissions would be helpful as a result of this development.
IT IS SO ORDERED.