Hammett v. Sherman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Case No.: 19-CV-605 JLS (LL) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. OBJECTION TO ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OPPORTUNITY TO 14 MARY E. SHERMAN, et al., REPLY TO RESPONSE TO 15 Defendants. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JANIS L. 16 SAMMARTINO 17 (ECF No. 155) 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s Objection to Order 20 Denying Plaintiff’s Opportunity to Reply to Response to Motion to Disqualify the 21 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino (“Obj.,” ECF No. 155). On August 22, 2020, Plaintiff 22 filed a Motion for Disqualification of the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino, noticing it for a 23 hearing on October 1, 2020. See ECF No. 153. The Court vacated the hearing and set a 24 deadline for any responses to be filed on or before September 1, 2020. See ECF No. 154. 25 Plaintiff contends that the Court’s decision not to entertain a reply “is a violation of 26 Plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to due process and equal justice under the law.” Obj. at 1. 27 It is not. See, e.g., Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Eclipse Lumber Co., 199 F.2d 684, 28 686 (9th Cir. 1952) (no mandatory right to file reply brief); In re Wisdom, No. 11-01135- 1 || JDP, 2014 WL 2175148, at *1 n.2 (Bankr. D. Idaho May 23, 2014) (noting in order on 2 ||recusal motion that filing of reply brief is not a requirement of due process but rather at the 3 ||court’s discretion). Nonetheless, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file a reply brief, not to 4 ||exceed ten (10) pages, on or before September 8, 2020. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 ||Dated: August 28, 2020 jae L. Lo memeaite- g on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28