So -- The DOGE Boys And Rubio And Trump Have Known About This Federal (SF) Court Deadline, Since May 2 -- And There Is No Right To Summary Judgment Motions.

This is the federal class action case in San Francisco that alleges DOGE had no lawful right to fire federal union employees without any due process, under the collective bargaining agreements, or existing federal "for cause only" firing regulations. [Just one of dozens of my backgrounders, here.]

It is a winner, and involves thousands of former federal employees (including my youngest son). Back in May, the able USDC Judge set a schedule, if the Rubio/DOGE bunch wanted to dismiss by summary motion. Now four months later, Rubio/DOGE says they cannot comply with the agreed deadline -- due to vacation schedules (among the DoJ lawyers). Poppycock.

I realize this is a small gripe, but here's that entirely silly declaration (filed on a Sunday!). To be clear, the larger point is that these jamokes think they don't have to comply with ANY rules, at all. [The reason it is taking so long is that there is literally no case law to support what these DOGE idiots did to federal workers.] And so, we must disabuse them of their hallucinations -- and promptly, now:

. . .On May 2, 2025, this Court entered an amended scheduling order. See Stip. & Order to Amend Scheduling Order, ECF No. 209. Among other things, that order set a schedule for the parties to file their respective briefs on their cross motions for summary judgment as follows:

a. Plaintiffs file their summary judgment motion no later than June 5, 2025;

b. [DOGE Boys] Defendants file a combined opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition no later than July 3, 2025;

c. Plaintiffs file a combined opposition and reply no later than July 24, 2025; and

d. Defendants file a reply no later than August 12, 2025 [Ed. Note: still seven days away, as I write this]. . . .

Defendants have been diligently preparing their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. However, due to the confluence of scheduled annual leave and unscheduled sick leave of Defendants’ undersigned counsel, the departure of one of Defendants’ litigation team members, see Notice of Withdrawal, ECF No. 229, and the press of business in other matters, Defendants will need an additional seven days to adequately prepare their reply. In light of the importance of the claims at issue in this litigation, denying Defendants adequate time to prepare their reply would substantially prejudice their ability to adequately address these issues.

Defendants contacted counsel for Plaintiffs on July 29, 2025 about their request to change the time for Defendants’ reply. Plaintiffs indicated that they do not oppose a two-day extension of time but object to any longer request. They did not contend that additional time for Defendants’ reply would prejudice Plaintiffs. . . .

Of course the federal workers are "prejudiced" -- every day's delay they are both out of work, now -- and (at least temporarily) no longer accruing benefits / contributions -- toward future pensions.

Damn. Just. . . damn. And as to the guy who quit -- it is just. . . shocking, that good lawyers no longer wish to work for. . . a feckless, deluded dotard.

नमस्ते