Edison Banks v. AT and T Mobility Services LLC

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 12 by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE for his failure to opposeDefendant's Motion. Both (1) P laintiff's response to this Order and (2) Plaintiff's opposition to the Motion, if any, shall be filed by no later than Tuesday, September 5, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good cause for P laintiff's failure to timely oppose Defendant's Motion, as well as any opposition. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 ("The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline set by order or local rule . The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, maybe deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion...."). If Plaintiff responds accordingly, then Defendant's Reply is due by no later than Tuesday, September 12, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. (jloz)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-05191-BRO (SKx)

Title

EDISON BANKS V. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC ET AL.

Date

September 1, 2017

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE FAILURE

TO OPPOSE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT [12]
Pending before the Court is Defendant AT&T Mobility Services, LLC’s
(“Defendant” or “AT&T”) Motion to File an Amended Answer. (Dkt. No. 12
(hereinafter, “Mot.” or “Motion”).) AT&T filed its Motion on August 21, 2017, noticing
a hearing date of September 18, 2017. (See Mot.) The Central District of California’s
Local Rules require an opposition to be filed twenty-one (21) days before the noticed
hearing date. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Accordingly, Plaintiff Edison Banks’s (“Plaintiff”)
opposition to Defendant’s Motion was due on August 28, 2017. As of this date, Plaintiff
has not filed any opposition.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE for his failure to oppose
Defendant’s Motion. Both (1) Plaintiff’s response to this Order and (2) Plaintiff’s
opposition to the Motion, if any, shall be filed by no later than Tuesday, September 5,
2017, at 12:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good
cause for Plaintiff’s failure to timely oppose Defendant’s Motion, as well as any
opposition. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The Court may decline to consider any
memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline set by order or local rule.
The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may
be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion . . . .”). If Plaintiff responds
accordingly, then Defendant’s Reply is due by no later than Tuesday, September 12,
2017, at 12:00 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 1