Harvey v. City of South Lake Tahoe et al

Filing 27

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/28/2012 ORDERING 24 In light of that representation, the 6/14/2012 order to show cause is DISCHARGED; although plaintiff may not have initially received defendants' 5/8/2012 notice that t he motion to dismiss was re-set for hearing, because plaintiff was notified of the 7/17/2012 hearing date in the 6/14/2012 order to show cause, the 7/17/2012 hearing date will remain on calendar at this time; in accordance with Local Rule 230, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion on or before 7/3/2012, and defendants shall file a reply thereto on or before 7/10/2012. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DANIEL THOMAS HARVEY,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-526-KJM-EFB PS

vs.
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE;
DOUGLAS COUNTY; EL DORADO
COUNTY; ROBERT K. PRISCARO;
JAKE HERMINGHAUS; SHANNON
LANEY; ANDREW EISSINGER,
ORDER
Defendants.

16

/
17
18

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to

19

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 14,

20

2012, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing

21

to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants County of El Dorado

22

and Robert K. Priscaro’s motion to dismiss,1 Dckt. No. 19, and continued the hearing on that

23
24
25
26

1

On May 8, 2012, defendants County of El Dorado and Robert K. Priscaro’s re-noticed
their motion to dismiss for June 20, 2012, Dckt. No. 19, after the original hearing date on their
motion was vacated by this court’s related case order, Dckt. No. 17 at 2. Although plaintiff
contends that defendants should not have been permitted to re-notice their hearing for a date
earlier than the date on which it was originally set, Dckt. No. 26 at 3, the related case order
1

1
2

motion to dismiss to July 17, 2012. Dckt. No. 24.
On June 22, 2012, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. Dckt. No. 26.

3

Therein, plaintiff states that he did not receive notice from the court or from the defendants

4

informing him that the motion to dismiss had been re-noticed for hearing. Id. at 2, 3. In light of

5

that representation, the June 14, 2012 order to show cause is discharged.

6

Although plaintiff may not have initially received defendants’ May 8, 2012 notice that

7

the motion to dismiss was re-set for hearing, because plaintiff was notified of the July 17, 2012

8

hearing date in the June 14, 2012 order to show cause, the July 17, 2012 hearing date will remain

9

on calendar at this time. In accordance with Local Rule 230, plaintiff shall file an opposition or

10

statement of non-opposition to the motion on or before July 3, 2012,2 and defendants shall file a

11

reply thereto on or before July 10, 2012.

12
13

SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 28, 2012.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

instructed defendants to re-notice the motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(b), which only
requires that the motion be heard not less than twenty-eight (28) days after service and filing of
the motion.

24
2

25
26

Although plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on June 18, 2012, Dckt. No. 25, it
appears that plaintiff may have been unaware at that time that the motion to dismiss had been renoticed. See Dckt. No. 25 at 2. Therefore, plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file a
revised opposition to the motion.
2