Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00301-JLS-JMA

Document 30

Filed 07/16/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This case is an interpleader action removed from San Diego County Superior Court. On February 15, 2008, after its motion to intervene was granted in the Superior Court, the United States of America filed the notice of removal. (Doc. No. 1.) On May 2, 2008, Laurel Hill Escrow -108cv301

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAUREL HILL ESCROW SERVICES, INC., vs. IDEVELOPMENT, INC. d/b/a A&M TOWING; ADVANTAGE TOWING COMPANY, INC.; MICHAEL BRANDEN; RE/MAX; COMMUNITY BANK; JIMMY JOHNSON'S KEARNY MESA CHEVROLET; LOMA RIVIERA 76; NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.; BRIDGET LEGGERRETTE; GEORGE PONCE; THE HOSE PROS; VOIT COMMERCIAL BROKERAGE; WELCH'S TIRES, INC; AT&T; and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendants, vs. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

CASE NO. 08CV301 JLS (JMA) ORDER ON FILING OF OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED OF INTERPLEADER LIABILITY AND RECOVER ATTORNEY'S FEES

Case 3:08-cv-00301-JLS-JMA

Document 30

Filed 07/16/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Services, Inc. ("plaintiff") filed a motion for discharge of liability, dismissal from the interpleader action, and attorney's fees in the amount of $2,575. (Doc. No. 17.) That motion was set for hearing on July 17, 2008.1 Only one defendant--the United States of America--filed a timely opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 27.) Plaintiff did not file a reply brief in support of its motion. On July 14, 2008, three days before the scheduled hearing, defendant Community Bank filed its opposition to the motion. (Doc. No. 29.) Community Bank's opposition referenced its filings regarding a similar motion that plaintiff had made in Superior Court. Community Bank's opposition was untimely because it was filed fewer than fourteen calendar days prior to the hearing date. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). Community Bank failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) because it did not file an ex parte motion for enlargement of time, establishing that (1) an enlargement of time would be for good cause and (2) Community Bank's failure to file a timely opposition was the result of "excusable neglect". Therefore, the Court ORDERS Community Bank to show cause why the Court should not strike its opposition memorandum for untimeliness. Community Bank SHALL RESPOND to this Order within seven (7) calendar days of the date that this Order is docketed. Community Bank's response SHALL TAKE the form of an ex parte motion for enlargement of time, pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B). Any other party2 wishing to oppose plaintiff's motion SHALL FILE its opposition memorandum within seven (7) calendar days of the date that this Order is docketed. Any opposition filed during this period SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED by an ex parte motion for enlargement of time, pursuant to FRCP 6(b)(1)(B). Failure to file an opposition during this time frame SHALL BE CONSTRUED as non-opposition to plaintiff's motion. The Court SHALL NOT CONSIDER documents filed in Superior Court in deciding the motion presently before the Court. Given the current state of the motion papers, the Court has taken the matter off calendar. Th Court will notify the parties if the Court resets the matter for hearing at a later date. This paragraph of the Court's Order does not apply to the United States of America, which already filed a timely opposition, or Community Bank. -208cv301
2 1

Case 3:08-cv-00301-JLS-JMA

Document 30

Filed 07/16/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff SHALL AWAIT further Order of the Court before filing a reply in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 16, 2008 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

-3-

08cv301