Anthony Brown v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 74

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HIS CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR UNTIMELINESS by Magistrate Judge Frederick F. Mumm. the Court ORDERS plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why his claims against the remaining defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice for untimeliness. (see order for details) (hr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-2162 DDP (FFM)

Title

Brown v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 9, 2018

Frederick F. Mumm, United States Magistrate Judge

James Munoz

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY HIS CLAIMS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
UNTIMELINESS

In the Court’s Report and Recommendation on the motion for judgment on the
pleadings filed by defendants Baca and County of Los Angeles (“COLA”), the Court
concluded as follows: (1) a two-year statute of limitations governs plaintiff’s claims; (2)
plaintiff’s claims accrued by the end of September 2011; (3) plaintiff did not file this action
until March 24, 2015; and (4) plaintiff is not entitled to tolling under Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
§ 352.1. The Court accordingly recommended that plaintiff’s claims against Baca and
COLA be dismissed with prejudice for untimeliness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c).
It does not appear to the Court that there is any distinction, with regard to timeliness,
between plaintiff’s claims against Baca and COLA and his claims against the remaining
defendants (Tanaka, Carey, Thompson, Leavins, Craig, Long, Smith, Manzo, and Sexton).
Therefore, the Court ORDERS plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 30 days of the
date of this order, why his claims against the remaining defendants should not be dismissed
with prejudice for untimeliness. See Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulson, 785 F.3d 330,
335 (9th Cir. 2015) (in context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), holding that
district court may dismiss claim sua sponte if it gives notice of intent to dismiss and
provides plaintiff opportunity to oppose dismissal in writing).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JM

Page 1 of 1