Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WILLIAMS v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, C 12-02511 SBA. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130530b00 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 29, 2013
Latest Update: May 29, 2013
Summary: ORDER Docket 18, 40. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge. On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. 40. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, any opposition to the motion was due by no later than fourteen days after the motion was filed, i.e., May 22, 2013. This Court's Standing Orders specifically warn that " [t]he failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute a consent to t
More

ORDER Docket 18, 40.

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Dkt. 40. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, any opposition to the motion was due by no later than fourteen days after the motion was filed, i.e., May 22, 2013. This Court's Standing Orders specifically warn that "[t]he failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion." Civil Standing Orders at 4, Dkt. 2. Notwithstanding the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-3 and this Court's Standing Orders, no Defendant has filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the proposed second amended complaint by no later than seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed.

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is DENIED as MOOT.

3. This Order terminates Docket 18 and Docket 40.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

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