STRICKLEN v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON-JANSSEN, 2:16-cv-805-TLN-KJN PS. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160721808
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss the action, which was noticed for hearing on July 28, 2016. (ECF No. 6.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, i.e., by July 14, 2016. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Although that deadline has passed, the court's records reveal that no opposition or s
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss the action, which was noticed for hearing on July 28, 2016. (ECF No. 6.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, i.e., by July 14, 2016. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Although that deadline has passed, the court's records reveal that no opposition or st..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss the action, which was noticed for hearing on July 28, 2016. (ECF No. 6.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, i.e., by July 14, 2016. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Although that deadline has passed, the court's records reveal that no opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion was filed.
The court has considered whether the case should be dismissed or other sanctions imposed based on plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion and comply with the Local Rules. Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, and the court's desire to resolve the action on the merits, the court finds it appropriate to continue the hearing and grant plaintiff another opportunity to oppose the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. July 28, 2016 hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss is VACATED and CONTINUED to August 11, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned.
2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion no later than July 28, 2016.
3. Any reply brief by defendant shall be due no later than August 4, 2016.
4. Failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss may result in the imposition of sanctions, including potential dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
