Filed: Nov. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 2017
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, seeks additional time to file an Opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss this case. Since plaintiff states good cause for his request, it will be GRANTED, but clarification of the status of this case is necessary insofar as plaintiff's request reflects confusion. The plaintiff filed his action in Solano County Superior Court on July 21, 2017. ECF No. 1 at 6. Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, seeks additional time to file an Opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss this case. Since plaintiff states good cause for his request, it will be GRANTED, but clarification of the status of this case is necessary insofar as plaintiff's request reflects confusion. The plaintiff filed his action in Solano County Superior Court on July 21, 2017. ECF No. 1 at 6. Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District ..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, seeks additional time to file an Opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss this case. Since plaintiff states good cause for his request, it will be GRANTED, but clarification of the status of this case is necessary insofar as plaintiff's request reflects confusion.
The plaintiff filed his action in Solano County Superior Court on July 21, 2017. ECF No. 1 at 6. Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of California on September 8, 2017, since plaintiff's claims included Title VII allegations which states a federal question and renders the matter removable. Therefore the matter is now pending in this District where the courthouse is located at 501 "I" Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Thus, plaintiff's desire to have the matter venued either in Solano County Superior Court or this District Court has been satisfied.
On September 14, 2017, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and set the matter for hearing on October 19, 2017. ECF No. 6. Under the Local Rules of this District plaintiff's Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to this Motion was due to be filed 14 days before the hearing or on October 5, 2017. Local Rule 230(c).1 When no timely opposition was received, this court issued an Order to Show Cause why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to oppose defendants' Motion. Plaintiff's request for additional time constituted his response to the Order to Show Cause which is now satisfied.
The undersigned has reviewed the parties' submittals regarding the failure to timely file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Because of the pro se nature of these proceedings, dismissing the case in light of plaintiff's requests would be inappropriate. However, Plaintiff must either file an Opposition to defendants' Motion or file a Statement of Non-Opposition. The result of the latter would be dismissal of the case. Because of the circumstances described in plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause the court will grant him 30 days from the date of this Order to file one or the other of these responses. He is warned that failure to do one or the other will result in dismissal of his Complaint.2
In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This Court's Order to Show Cause of October 10, 2017 is withdrawn as satisfied;
2. The Findings and Recommendations issued October 31, 2017, ECF No. 10 are vacated;
3. Plaintiff shall file either an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
