GOINS v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 16-cv-06705-SK. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170207906
Visitors: 29
Filed: Feb. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2017
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Docket No. 14 SALLIE KIM , Magistrate Judge . This matter is set for a hearing on February 27, 2017 on the motion for a more definite statement filed by defendant City and County of San Francisco. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule of the Northern District 7-3, plaintiff Rafael Goins' opposition or statement of non-opposition was due to be filed and served by January 31, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Regarding Docket No. 14 SALLIE KIM , Magistrate Judge . This matter is set for a hearing on February 27, 2017 on the motion for a more definite statement filed by defendant City and County of San Francisco. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule of the Northern District 7-3, plaintiff Rafael Goins' opposition or statement of non-opposition was due to be filed and served by January 31, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff ..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Regarding Docket No. 14
SALLIE KIM, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is set for a hearing on February 27, 2017 on the motion for a more definite statement filed by defendant City and County of San Francisco. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule of the Northern District 7-3, plaintiff Rafael Goins' opposition or statement of non-opposition was due to be filed and served by January 31, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition.
Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE ("OSC") in writing, by no later than February 10, 2017, why the pending motion for a more definite statement should not be granted in light of his failure to file a timely opposition. If Plaintiff seeks to file a substantive response to the pending motion, Plaintiff must demonstrate good cause for failing to file his opposition brief in a timely fashion. In his response to this OSC, Plaintiff is also directed to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is admonished that his failure to respond this Order by February 10, 2017, will result in a dismissal of this action without further notice.
If Plaintiff seeks to file a substantive response to the motion for a more definite statement and demonstrates good cause for his delay, the Court will provide Defendant with an opportunity to file a reply brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
