Filed: Sep. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO UPDATE ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 40, 41 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . The docket reflects that mail sent to pro se plaintiff Nathaniel Basola Sobayo was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 39. Plaintiff appears to have listed one address—2148 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303—on his state court filings, but a slightly different address—2142 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303—on his more recent filings with thi
Summary: ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO UPDATE ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 40, 41 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON , District Judge . The docket reflects that mail sent to pro se plaintiff Nathaniel Basola Sobayo was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 39. Plaintiff appears to have listed one address—2148 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303—on his state court filings, but a slightly different address—2142 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303—on his more recent filings with this..
More
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO UPDATE ADDRESS AND RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 39, 40, 41
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.
The docket reflects that mail sent to pro se plaintiff Nathaniel Basola Sobayo was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 39. Plaintiff appears to have listed one address—2148 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303—on his state court filings, but a slightly different address—2142 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303—on his more recent filings with this court.
Defendant Real Time Resolutions ("RTR") has indicated that plaintiff has not responded to its motions to vacate state court default (Dkt. 13) and to dismiss (Dkt. 8). See Dkt. 40, 41. In light of the confusion about his address, plaintiff may not have received them.
Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED, as soon as possible, to file with the court a notice of his current and correct address. See Local Rule 3-11. Plaintiff shall also indicate whether he has received RTR's motions. If he has not, RTR shall immediately re-serve the papers to the correct address.
In light of the confusion regarding plaintiff's correct address, the court will permit plaintiff additional time to respond to RTR's motions. It is hereby ORDERED that:
• Plaintiff shall file a response to RTR's motions by September 30, 2016.
• RTR's reply brief will be due seven days after plaintiff's response.
• The currently-noticed hearing date of remains as scheduled: October 26, 2016, at 9 a.m., Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, 1301 Clay St., Oakland, CA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
