Hammett v. Sherman

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAURA LYNN HAMMETT, Case No.: 19-CV-605 JLS (LL) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S v. OBJECTION TO ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S OPPORTUNITY TO MARY E. SHERMAN, et al., REPLY TO RESPONSE TO 15 Defendants. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JANIS L.

SAMMARTINO (ECF No. 155) 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Laura Lynn Hammett’s Objection to Order Denying Plaintiff’s Opportunity to Reply to Response to Motion to Disqualify the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino (“Obj.,” ECF No. 155). On August 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Disqualification of the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino, noticing it for a hearing on October 1, 2020. See ECF No. 153. The Court vacated the hearing and set a 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 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, 686 (9th Cir. 1952) (no mandatory right to file reply brief); In re Wisdom, No. 11-01135- || JDP, 2014 WL 2175148, at *1 n.2 (Bankr. D. Idaho May 23, 2014) (noting in order on ||recusal motion that filing of reply brief is not a requirement of due process but rather at the ||court’s discretion). Nonetheless, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file a reply brief, not to ||exceed ten (10) pages, on or before September 8, 2020.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 ||Dated: August 28, 2020 jae L. Lo memeaite- g on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge