ORTIZ v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., 2:17-cv-713-TLN-KJN PS. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170525961
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 24, 2017
Latest Update: May 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss, which was noticed for hearing on June 1, 2017. (ECF Nos. 3, 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 May 18, 2017. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Although that deadline has passed, the court's records reveal that no opposition or statement
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Presently pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss, which was noticed for hearing on June 1, 2017. (ECF Nos. 3, 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 May 18, 2017. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Although that deadline has passed, the court's records reveal that no opposition or statement o..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Presently pending before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss, which was noticed for hearing on June 1, 2017. (ECF Nos. 3, 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 May 18, 2017. 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 provide plaintiff with an additional, final opportunity to oppose the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The June 1, 2017 hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss is VACATED, and defendant's counsel's request to appear telephonically at that hearing is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or stattement of non-opposition to the motion no later than June 8, 2017.
3. Any reply brief by defendant shall be due no later than June 22, 2017.
4. Thereafter, the motion will be submitted for decisiion on the record and written briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). If the court subsequently determines that supplemental briefing or oral argumentt is necessary, the parties will be notified.
5. Failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss will be construed as plaintiff's consent to dismissal of the action and will result in dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
