ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CHANGE TIME (Docket No. 15)

EDWARD CHEN, Magistrate Judge

Currently, the Court has set for hearing two motions on June 15, 2011: (1) Defendant's motion to dismiss (filed on April 29, 2011) and (2) Plaintiff's motion to remand (filed on May 9, 2011). Plaintiff has moved for a change in time, asking that his motion to remand remain set for hearing on June 15 but that Defendant's motion to dismiss be deferred until some time after the Court has ruled on the motion to remand. Defendant opposes the motion.

Ordinarily, the Court would entertain both motions on the same date as a matter of judicial economy. However, Plaintiff has stated that he has "limited financial means" and that "[c]ompensating his counsel for opposing [Defendant's] Motion to [D]ismiss will cost him several thousand dollars and work a potentially avoidable hardship upon him if the Motion to Remand is heard first and granted." Salisbury Decl. ¶ 4. In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is the one to have initiated the lawsuit and he must be "prepared to address ordinary motions filed in the course of this litigation." Opp'n at 2. While this is true, that does not mean that the Court cannot take into account potential financial hardship on Plaintiff. Moreover, Defendant has failed to identify any prejudice it would suffer if the Court were to have the motion to dismiss deferred.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to change time. Plaintiff's motion to remand remains set for hearing on June 15, 2011. The hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss is VACATED, as is the briefing schedule for that motion. If the Court denies the motion to remand, then it shall set a new hearing date and briefing schedule for Defendant's motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.