Fleming v. Rosen
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-10334
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate and have been consolidated across spelling variants.
In Fleming v. Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld, Judge Lin granted defendants’ schedule motion and denied Fleming’s speedy-hearing motion.
Rhonda Fleming and the defendants. The court changed or clarified the scheduling posture for defendants’ pending motion practice and denied Fleming an expedited hearing on her declaratory-relief claim.
What happened
In Rhonda Fleming v. Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, et al., defendants asked the court to clarify or change the schedule for briefing their pending motion to dismiss. They wanted to preserve the option of seeking summary judgment if the dismissal motion was denied.
The court granted defendants’ scheduling motion. It said that no summary-judgment schedule was needed while the motion to dismiss remained pending, and that a new schedule would be set if necessary.
The court denied Fleming’s request for a speedy hearing on her claim seeking a declaration of her rights. Judge Rita F. Lin found that Fleming had not shown urgency or prejudice from following the ordinary schedule, and said the claim would be considered with the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Fleming v. Rosen · No. 3:25-cv-10334
- Lin
- Aug. 17, 2026
Background
Defendants had filed a motion to dismiss that, if granted, would dispose of all claims against all defendants. They moved to clarify or modify the briefing schedule so they could preserve the right to file a motion for summary judgment if the motion to dismiss were denied.
Fleming separately moved under Rule 57, a rule concerning declaratory judgments, for a speedy hearing on her claim seeking declaratory relief.
Rulings
The court granted defendants’ motion to clarify or modify the motion briefing schedule. Because the motion to dismiss was pending, the court found there was no present need to set a briefing schedule for a possible summary-judgment motion. The court stated that it would set a new schedule if the motion to dismiss were denied.
The court denied Fleming’s motion for a speedy hearing. It found that Fleming had not identified a reason for urgency or shown that she would be prejudiced without an expedited hearing. The court also stated that defendants’ motion to dismiss, if granted, would dispose of the declaratory-relief claim, which would be considered when the court addressed that motion.
The Clerk was directed to terminate Docket Nos. 40 and 42. The opinion did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Fleming’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.