Van Den Heuvel v. Shingle Springs Tribal Wellness

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/28/14 ORDERING that the hearing on 10 the MOTION to DISMISS for LACK of JURISDICTION is RESET for 11/5/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. (Kastilahn, A)

1 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
2 VICTORIA L. BOESCH
Assistant United States Attorney
3 501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
Attorneys for the United States
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15

CASE NO.: 2:14-cv-1555-TLN-EFB PS
UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF
RESCHEDULED HEARING ON
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION AND PROPOSED
ORDER

Defendant.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

16
17

NEW HEARING DATE:
Date: November 5, 2014
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Edmund F. Brennan
Ctrm.: 8, 13th floor

18
19
20
21

Old Hearing Date:
Date: October 1, 2014
Time: 10:00 a.m.

22
23
24
25

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, at Pro Se Plaintiff Jean Marc Van Den Heuvel’s request, the

26 United States hereby reschedules the hearing on its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
27 Jurisdiction (Dkt. 10) to November 5, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may
28
1
UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING
ON MOTION TO DISMISS

1 be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Edmund F. Brennan, United States Magistrate Judge,
2 United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, Courtroom No. 8, 13th Floor. The
3 United States brings this motion because, in order to bring a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act
4 (the “FTCA”), Plaintiff must first exhaust his administrative remedies. Because he has not done so,
5 the Court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s case must be dismissed.
6

On August 26, 2014, the United States’ counsel received a request from Plaintiff for 30 more

7 days to respond to its motion to dismiss. That request suggests that Plaintiff had a stroke and needs
8 extra time to respond. See Exhibit A. The United States therefore re-notices its motion to give
9 Plaintiff the requested extra time.
10

Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the United States refers him to Eastern District of

11 California Local Rule 230, which provides:
12
13
14
15

Opposition and Non-Opposition. Opposition, if any, to the granting of
the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served not less
than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing
date. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the
motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically
designating the motion in question. No party will be entitled to be
heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the
motion has not been timely filed by that party. See [Local Rule] 135.

16
17 E.D. Cal. R. 230(c).
18

Respectfully submitted,

19
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

20
21

Dated: August 27, 2014

By:

/s/ Victoria L. Boesch
VICTORIA L. BOESCH
Assistant United States Attorney

22
23
24
25

Attorneys for the United States
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 28, 2014.

26
27
28
2
UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING
ON MOTION TO DISMISS