welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. California
  4. 2018
  5. (PS) Ward v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 2:17-cv-0734 MCE DB PS. (2018)

(PS) Ward v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 2:17-cv-0734 MCE DB PS. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180110863 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . On November 28, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On December 12, 2017, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on January 12, 2018. 1 (ECF No. 17.) On January 3, 2018, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition and a request to continue the hearing of defendant's motion to dismiss. 2 (ECF Nos. 18 & 19.) Plaintiff asks that the January 12, 2018 hearing
More

ORDER

On November 28, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 16.) On December 12, 2017, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on January 12, 2018.1 (ECF No. 17.) On January 3, 2018, plaintiff filed an untimely opposition and a request to continue the hearing of defendant's motion to dismiss.2 (ECF Nos. 18 & 19.) Plaintiff asks that the January 12, 2018 hearing be continued because plaintiff "has a court date for January 11, 2018 . . . in Galesburg, IL . . . ." (ECF No. 19 at 1.) Good cause appearing, plaintiff's request will be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The January 12, 2018 hearing of defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is continued to Friday, February 2, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned; and

2. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's untimely opposition on or before January 26, 2018.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff's opposition should have been filed on or before December 29, 2017. Going forward, the undersigned anticipates that plaintiff will fully comply with the Local Rules.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
2:17-cv-0734 MCE DB PS.
Counsels
  • Selim Mounedji
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer