Al-Mansur v. County of Alameda ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SABIR AL-MANSUR, Case No. 24-cv-06909-AMO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING 9 v. AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19, 22, 23, 34 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court are several administrative motions that are now ripe for decision. Having 14 reviewed the parties’ papers as well as relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the 15 Court rules as follows. 16 A. Defendants’ Motion to Change Time to File Responsive Pleading 17 On October 25, 2024, Defendants County of Alameda, Henry C. Levy, Julie P. Manaois, 18 Theody Virrey, and Shahidah J. Williams (“Defendants”)1 together moved to extend the deadline 19 to file a responsive pleading under Civil Local Rule 6-3. ECF 18. Defendants additionally move 20 for the Court to impose a scheduling order on the motion to change time. ECF 19. In light of 21 Plaintiff Sabir Al-Mansour’s opposition filings (see ECF 27, ECF 28, ECF 29), the Court finds a 22 scheduling order on the motion to change time no longer necessary and accordingly 23 TERMINATES the scheduling order request as moot. 24 Defendants seek an extension of their deadline to file a responsive pleading to permit 25 counsel sufficient time to accomplish two significant matters: (1) to review Plaintiff’s Complaint 26 and exhibits, and (2) to prepare a response to Plaintiff’s pending motion for preliminary 27 1 injunction. See ECF 18. Counsel for Defendants anticipates that the two tasks will require 2 substantial time and effort to complete, supporting good cause for the extension of time. See Van 3 Zandt Decl. (ECF 18-1).2 4 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request on the basis that counsel for Defendants failed to file 5 a notice of appearance in the case until filing the motion to change time on October 25, 2024. 6 While Plaintiff cites several cases in his oppositions regarding the importance of procedural 7 compliance, none of them stands for the premise that an attorney’s filing of a notice of appearance 8 at the time of their initial filings constitutes a procedural defect or a sign of bad faith. See, e.g., 9 ECF 25 at 8 (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992)). 10 Counsel’s filing of a notice of appearance alongside the initial filings in the matter plainly 11 comports with Civil Local Rule 5-1(c)(2)(A)’s requirement for counsel to file a notice of 12 appearance upon joining a case, see ECF 17, ECF 18, ECF 19, and there is no procedural error. 13 Because Plaintiff will suffer no cognizable prejudice, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 14 extend the deadline to file a responsive pleading under Civil Local Rule 6-3. Defendants’ 15 responsive pleading shall be filed on or before December 2, 2024. 16 B. Plaintiff’s Motions to Change Time Regarding Motion to Disqualify Counsel 17 On October 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify counsel for Defendants. ECF 18 24. The noticed motion is set for hearing on December 12, 2024. Id. Along with this motion, 19 Plaintiff filed a request for expedited hearing on the motion to disqualify (ECF 22) and a motion to 20 shorten time to hear the motion to disqualify under Civil Local Rule 6-3 (ECF 23). Defendants 21 did not file a response to the motions for expedited hearing and the motion to shorten time. In 22 light of Defendants’ non-opposition, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request as modified. The 23 Court will hear the motion to disqualify along with Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction 24 on November 26, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom Webinar. The briefing schedule on the motion to 25 disqualify remains unchanged. 26 27 1 C. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion for Leave to File Extended Reply Brief 2 On November 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion for leave to file an extended 3 || reply brief in support of his motion for preliminary injunction. ECF 34. Plaintiff advances that 4 || the complexity of legal issues, volume of factual material, and significance of issues at stake all 5 weigh in favor of permitting him a reply brief not exceeding 25 pages in length. See id. 6 || Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to the request for expanded brief. ECF 35. The Court 7 GRANTS Plaintiff's request. Plaintiff may file a reply brief not exceeding 25 pages in length. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: November 8, 2024 11 - 1. ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 13 United States District Judge 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28