Case3:15-cv-02228-RS Document67 Filed06/10/15 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
LILY JEUNG, et al.,

10

Case No. 15-cv-02228-RS

Plaintiffs,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.

ORDER DENYING "MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF"

12
YELP INC.,

13

Defendant.
14
15
Both before and after the transfer of this action to this district, plaintiffs have filed various

16
17

pleadings with confusing titles in the captions and/or garbled descriptions and/or incorrect event

18

types in the electronic docket entries. As a result, the court in the Central District issued several

19

orders striking certain of plaintiffs’ submissions. Complaining that plaintiffs’ filings in this

20

district failed to comply with the local rules on notice, and that various ambiguities now exist as to

21

what motions are pending and as to the briefing schedules, defendant seeks “administrative relief”

22

under Local Rule 7-11. Defendant requests an order vacating the current hearing, and postponing

23

at least one of plaintiffs’ motions until after a case management conference has been held. 1

24

Docket entries characterized as motions filed by plaintiffs in the Central District appear at

25

Dkt. Nos. 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, and 45. The record is clear, however, that all of these documents

26
1

27
28

Most of the relief defendant seeks more properly would be characterized as a motion to change
time under Local Rule 6-3, than a motion for administrative relief under Rule 7-11. Defendant’s
omission of a citation to that rule, however, is not critical.

 Case3:15-cv-02228-RS Document67 Filed06/10/15 Page2 of 3

1

except Dkt. Nos. 40 (a motion for sanctions) and 45 (a motion for “preliminary certification of a

2

collective action”) were stricken by the court prior to transfer. See Orders at Dkt. Nos. 33, 39, and

3

41. 2 Accordingly, at the time of the transfer, plaintiffs’ only pending motions were Dkt Nos. 40

4

and 45.
After transfer, plaintiff filed a document renoticing those two motions for June 25, 2015.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5
6

See Dkt. No. 56. While the title on the document and its text were reasonably clear, plaintiffs

7

confusingly docketed it as a “motion to continue.” More problematically, plaintiffs failed to set

8

the hearing in the ECF system, with the result that no briefing schedule appeared in the docket

9

entry. It is counsel’s responsibility to learn to use the ECF system correctly, and he is hereby

10

directed to undertake appropriate steps to ensure that he and/or his office staff can file and docket

11

pleadings in the proper manner.
Apart from technical errors in docketing, the problem with the renotice at Dkt. No. 56 is

12
13

that plaintiffs failed to comply with the minimum 35 days’ notice period prescribed by Civil Local

14

Rule 7-2(a). While plaintiffs may have believed the prior pendency of the motions in the Central

15

District warranted a shorter notice period here, they were not entitled unilaterally to ignore the

16

rule.
Ultimately, however, the Court reset plaintiffs’ motions for July 9, 2015, to coincide with

17
18

defendant’s pending motions. At this juncture, defendant has also had well more than 35 days’

19

notice of plaintiffs’ motions. Accordingly, defendant shall file any oppositions to plaintiffs’

20

motions by June 18, 2015. Any replies shall be filed by June 25, 2015.
The Court reserves the option of deferring consideration of the certification motion until

21
22

after the motion to dismiss has been decided and/or until a case management conference has been

23

held. Additionally, any or all of the motions set for July 9, 2015 may be taken under submission

24

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), in which event further notice to that

25
26
27

2

One additional document was docketed as a motion at Dkt. No. 36. As the Central District
specifically pointed out in a notice at Dkt. No. 37, that document plainly was a declaration in
support of the motion at Dkt. No. 35 (later stricken), not an independent motion.

28

CASE NO.

2

15-cv-02228-RS

 Case3:15-cv-02228-RS Document67 Filed06/10/15 Page3 of 3

1

effect will be given.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6
7

Dated: June 10, 2015
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

3

15-cv-02228-RS