Patel v. Patel

Opinion

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6

7 SUVAS D. PATEL, 8 DOMESTIC CASE NO. DM 0845-11 Plaintiff,

9 V.

IO DECISION AND ORDER

II BIJAL M. PATEL,

I2 Defendant.

I3

I4 This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 1oth day of December, I5 2013, on filing of the pro se Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Exceed the Number of Pages in the I6 Memorandum in Support of a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Scheduling Order and I7

I8 Discovery Plan for this case, issued on May 9, 2012, required that all dispositive motions be

I9 filed on or before July 2, 2012. Accordingly, as the Court advised the Plaintiff at hearing on 20 August 23, 2013, the time for filing a summary judgment motion has passed. Because the 2I Plaintiffs motion is premised on the filing of a subsequent summary judgment motion that 22

23 would be untimely, it cannot be granted. The Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED this day 25

26

27 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 28 Judge, Superior Court of Guam