Gilbert v. Chase Home Finance, LLC et al.

Filing 24

ORDER on plaintiff's motion to continue hearing. signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/25/13. (Nazaroff, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,
)
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and )
DOES 1-100 inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
JAMES D. GILBERT,

1:13-CV-265 AWI SKO
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO CONTINUE
HEARING

15
16
On July 23, 2013, the Court vacated a July 29, 2013 hearing on Defendants’ motion to
17
dismiss. The Court noted that Plaintiff had failed to file an opposition and was in violation of the
18
local rules. After the Court signed the order, but before the order was docketed, Plaintiff filed an
19
untimely opposition.
20
On July 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed a combined motion to continue and leave to file a late
21
opposition, and improperly set that motion for a hearing for July 29, 2013, despite the fact that
22
this date had been vacated and the motion to dismiss had been taken under submission.
23
Also on July 24, 2013, Defendants filed a reply. As part of the reply, Defendants contend
24
that Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition should be construed as a consent to dismissal.
25
Plaintiff’s motion to continue will be denied. There is no proper reason to continue the
26
hearing on the motion to dismiss. Further, the Court has reviewed the opposition and the reply,
27
and a hearing on the motion to dismiss remains unnecessary. The Court, however, will consider
28

1

the opposition and the reply. The consequence of a failure to file a timely opposition is that a

2

party will not be heard at oral argument; it is not consent to dismissal.

3
4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

6

Plaintiffs’ motion to continue is DENIED, but the Court will consider Plaintiff’s untimely
opposition;

7

2.

The July 29, 2013, hearing date remains VACATED as to all motions in this case; and

8

3.

The Court will issue its decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss on after July 29, 2013.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
0m8i78

July 25, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2