Al-Mansur v. County of Alameda
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-06909
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Al-Mansur v. County of Alameda, Judge Martinez-Olguin terminated one scheduling request as moot and granted three administrative requests.
The order affects Sabir Al-Mansur and the County of Alameda, Henry C. Levy, Julie P. Manaois, Theody Virrey, and Shahidah J. Williams by setting filing deadlines, hearing dates, and a reply-brief page limit.
What happened
In Al-Mansur v. County of Alameda, the court considered several scheduling and administrative requests involving the defendants’ response deadline, a motion to disqualify counsel, and a motion for preliminary injunction.
The court terminated the defendants’ request for a scheduling order as moot and granted their request to extend the deadline for a responsive pleading to December 2, 2024. It also granted, as modified, the plaintiff’s request to expedite and shorten the time for hearing his motion to disqualify counsel, setting that hearing alongside the preliminary-injunction hearing on November 26, 2024. The court further granted the plaintiff permission to file a reply brief of up to 25 pages.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin issued the order on November 8, 2024. The order addressed timing and briefing matters and did not decide the motion to disqualify counsel or the motion for preliminary injunction.
The detailed version
- Al-Mansur v. County of Alameda · No. 3:24-cv-06909
- Martinez-Olguin
- Nov. 8, 2024
Background
The court considered administrative motions concerning the timing of the defendants’ responsive pleading, the hearing on Sabir Al-Mansur’s motion to disqualify defense counsel, and briefing on his motion for a preliminary injunction.
Rulings on the Defendants’ Requests
The County of Alameda, Henry C. Levy, Julie P. Manaois, Theody Virrey, and Shahidah J. Williams jointly moved to extend the deadline for filing a responsive pleading. They said additional time was needed to review the complaint and exhibits and to prepare a response to the pending motion for preliminary injunction. Al-Mansur opposed the request, arguing that defense counsel had not timely filed a notice of appearance.
The court rejected that procedural objection, finding that counsel’s notice of appearance complied with the applicable local rule and that Al-Mansur would suffer no cognizable prejudice. The court granted the motion to extend the deadline, requiring the defendants to file their responsive pleading on or before December 2, 2024.
The defendants also requested a scheduling order concerning their motion to change time. In light of Al-Mansur’s opposition filings, the court found that request unnecessary and terminated the scheduling order request as moot.
Rulings on Al-Mansur’s Requests
Al-Mansur had filed a motion to disqualify defense counsel, set initially for December 12, 2024. He also requested an expedited hearing and moved to shorten the time for hearing the disqualification motion. Because the defendants did not oppose those requests, the court granted the request as modified. The court set the disqualification hearing for November 26, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom Webinar, to be held together with the preliminary-injunction hearing. The briefing schedule for the disqualification motion remained unchanged.
Al-Mansur separately sought permission to file a reply brief of up to 25 pages in support of his preliminary-injunction motion. The defendants filed a notice of non-opposition. The court granted the request and permitted a reply brief not exceeding 25 pages.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved scheduling, hearing, and briefing issues. It did not rule on the merits of the motion to disqualify counsel or the motion for preliminary injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.