A.C.L. COMPUTERS AND SOFTWARE, INC. v. U.S., 16-cv-01485-SK. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170208a92
Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Docket No. 30 SALLIE KIM , Magistrate Judge . This matter is set for a hearing on February 27, 2017 on the motion to dismiss by defendant United States of America. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule of the Northern District 7-3, plaintiff A.C.L. Computers and Software, Inc.'s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due to be filed and served by February 3, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff is HEREB
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Docket No. 30 SALLIE KIM , Magistrate Judge . This matter is set for a hearing on February 27, 2017 on the motion to dismiss by defendant United States of America. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule of the Northern District 7-3, plaintiff A.C.L. Computers and Software, Inc.'s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due to be filed and served by February 3, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff is HEREBY..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Regarding Docket No. 30
SALLIE KIM, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is set for a hearing on February 27, 2017 on the motion to dismiss by defendant United States of America. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule of the Northern District 7-3, plaintiff A.C.L. Computers and Software, Inc.'s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due to be filed and served by February 3, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition.
Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE ("OSC") in writing, by no later than February 10, 2017, why the pending motion to dismiss should not be granted in light of Plaintiff's failure to file a timely opposition. If Plaintiff seeks to file a substantive response to the pending motion, Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause for failing to file its opposition brief in a timely fashion. In its response to this OSC, Plaintiff is also directed to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is admonished that its failure to respond this Order by February 10, 2017, will result in a dismissal of this action without further notice.
If Plaintiff seeks to file a substantive response to the motion to dismiss and demonstrates good cause for its delay, the Court will provide Defendant with an opportunity to file a reply brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
