Dragoman v. Adams, C 18-00845 WHA. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180309c51
Visitors: 32
Filed: Mar. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff Lynn Frank Dragoman, Jr., filed a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Order under Sections 527.6 and 527.9 of the California Code Civil Procedure in Sonoma County Superior Court on January 23, 2018. On February 8, defendant Kerry Lee Adams removed the action. On February 15, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The notice of removal and motion to dismiss were served on plaintiff, and plaintiff w
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Pro se plaintiff Lynn Frank Dragoman, Jr., filed a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Order under Sections 527.6 and 527.9 of the California Code Civil Procedure in Sonoma County Superior Court on January 23, 2018. On February 8, defendant Kerry Lee Adams removed the action. On February 15, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The notice of removal and motion to dismiss were served on plaintiff, and plaintiff wa..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Pro se plaintiff Lynn Frank Dragoman, Jr., filed a Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Order under Sections 527.6 and 527.9 of the California Code Civil Procedure in Sonoma County Superior Court on January 23, 2018. On February 8, defendant Kerry Lee Adams removed the action. On February 15, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The notice of removal and motion to dismiss were served on plaintiff, and plaintiff was given until March 1 to file a response. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff SHALL FILE A RESPONSE to the motion to dismiss by MARCH 15, 2018. If he fails to do so, the complaint may be dismissed. Plaintiff shall appear in courtroom 12 on the 19th floor of 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco on APRIL 5 AT 8:00 A.M. and SHOW CAUSE why his complaint should not be dismissed. Defendant's reply to plaintiff's response, if any, is due by MARCH 22.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
