Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00226-W-AJB

Document 12

Filed 03/07/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 C.S., by and through his Conservator, MARY STRUBLE, et. al., vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08-CV-0226 W (AJB) ORDER EXTENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE (Doc. No. 9) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. On February 5, 2008 Plaintiff C.S. et. al. ("Plaintiffs") commenced this class

18 action against Defendant California Department of Education ("Defendant"or "CDE") 19 alleging violations of equal protection and federal law and seeking injunctive relief. 20 (Doc. No. 1.) On February 19, 2008 Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order 21 ("TRO"). (Doc. No. 4.) On February 20, 2008, because the alleged irreparable harm

22 was not imminent, the Court issued a briefing schedule to allow the parties to fully brief 23 their arguments. (Doc. No. 7.) At the time, Plaintiffs' counsel represented to the Court

24 that Defendant had been served and was well-aware of the pending action and TRO. 25 On March 5, 2008 Defendant requested an extension of time to file its response 26 to Plaintiffs' TRO. (Doc. No. 9.) Defendant argues that despite Plaintiffs' 27 representations to the Court, Plaintiff did not actually serve the CDE with a copy of the 28 Complaint until February 25, 2008. (Ex Parte Time Extension 2.) Plaintiffs' counsel all
-108cv226W

Case 3:08-cv-00226-W-AJB

Document 12

Filed 03/07/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 but concedes this point; she declares that she instructed her attorney service to serve 2 an address she found on the CDE website, and not the authorized agent. (Ellen Dowd 3 Decl. ¶ 5.) 4 Good cause appearing, and because any irreparable injury Plaintiffs may suffer will In further 5 not occur until July 1, 2008, (See February 20, 2008 Order), the Court GRANTS 6 Defendant's ex parte request for a thirty-day extension of time. 7 representations to the Court, Plaintiffs' counsel is expected to be more candid and 8 adhere to all her responsibilities under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DATED: March 7, 2008 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-208cv226W

In conclusion: 1. 2. 3. Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's application for a TRO must be filed and served by April 14, 2008. Plaintiff's reply must be filed and served no later than April 21, 2008. The hearing date is continued to April 28, 2008. Unless otherwise notified, the Court will take the matters under submission and without oral argument . See S.D. Civ. R. 7.1(d.1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan United States District Judge