Clark James Cavanaugh et al v. City of Fontana et al

Filing 21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Both (1) Plaintiffs' resp onse to this Order and (2) Plaintiffs' opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, if any, shall be filed by no later than Monday, July 25, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiffs' failure to timely oppose Defendants' Motion. If Plaintiffs respond accordingly, Defendants' Reply is due by no later than Monday, August 1, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (jy)

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

CV 16-01001-BRO (DTBx)

Title

CLARK JAMES CAVANAUGH ET AL. V. CITY OF FONTANA ET AL.

Date

July 18, 2016

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Cheryl Wynn

Not Present

N/A

Relief 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 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Fontana and Efrain Gonzalez’s
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 10.) Defendants filed their
Motion on May 23, 2016, noticing a hearing date of June 20, 2016. (Id.) On June 6,
2016, the Court filed an Order to Show Cause regarding Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 13.) On June 13, 2016, the Court granted
Defendants’ Motion and dismissed the instant action without prejudice. (See Dkt. No.
15.) On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff Clark Cavanaugh filed a Request for Continuance to
Retain Counsel. (See Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.) On June 22, 2016, the Court re-opened the
instant action and scheduled the hearing of Defendants’ Motion for August 1, 2016,
ordering Plaintiffs to file their opposition to the Motion no later than July 11, 2016. (Dkt.
No. 20.) As of today’s date, however, Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition. Pursuant
to Local Rule 7-12, the failure to file an opposition “may be deemed consent to the
granting . . . of the motion.” See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court
should not grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Both (1) Plaintiffs’ response to this
Order and (2) Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, if any, shall be filed by
no later than Monday, July 25, 2016, at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will
include reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiffs’ failure to timely oppose

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 16-01001-BRO (DTBx)

Title

CLARK JAMES CAVANAUGH ET AL. V. CITY OF FONTANA ET AL.

Date

July 18, 2016

Defendants’ Motion. If Plaintiffs respond accordingly, Defendants’ Reply is due by
no later than Monday, August 1, 2016, at 4:00 p.m.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

cw

Page 2 of 2