Wilburn v. Bratcher et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/10/15 ORDERING that the 6/18/15 hearing on the motions to dismiss 15 , 20 filed by defendants Bratcher and Gweon, and the 8/6/15 hearing on plaintiff's 6 , 28 motion to remand, ar e VACATED. Plaintiff's 29 motion to continue, construed as a request for extension of time in which to file an opposition, is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant Gweon's motion to dismiss by 7/9/2015. The motions will be submitted on the record after the time for filing opposition and replies have passed. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TERRENCE LAMAR WILBURN,
No. 2:15-cv-0699 TLN GGH PS
GARREN BRATCHER, et al.,
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local
Presently calendared for hearing on June 18, 2015 are motions to dismiss filed by
defendant Bratcher (ECF No. 15), and by defendant Gweon. (ECF Nos. 20, 21, 23, 24.) Plaintiff
has filed an opposition to Bratcher’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff has not filed an
opposition to Gweon’s motion; however, he has filed a motion to continue the hearing on both of
the aforementioned motions to August 6, 2015 with an implied request to file his opposition at a
later time due to defendants’ alleged failure to serve plaintiff with the motions in a timely manner
and the change in hearing date on Gweon’s motion from January, 2016 to June, 2015. (ECF No.
29.) A review of the docket and proofs of service filed in conjunction with Gweon and Bratcher’s
motions to dismiss indicate that plaintiff was served with the motions at least twenty-eight (28)
days prior to the noticed hearing date of June 18, 2015. (ECF Nos. 19, 20.) See E.D. Local Rule
230(b). As plaintiff has now filed an opposition to Bratcher’s motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 31),
his request is moot as to that motion. In regard to defendant Gweon’s motion, plaintiff’s request
for a continuance in this regard will be construed as a request for extension of time in which to
oppose that motion and will be granted.
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion to remand, filed April 20, 2015, and noticed for
hearing on August 6, 2015.1 (ECF Nos. 6, 28.)
Having reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral argument would not be of
material assistance in determining the aforementioned pending motions. Accordingly, the court
will not entertain oral argument, and will determine the motions on the record, including the
briefing in support of and in opposition to the pending motions. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The June 18, 2015 hearing on the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Bratcher and
Gweon, (ECF Nos. 15, 20), and the August 6, 2015 hearing on plaintiff’s motion to remand, (ECF
Nos. 6, 28), are vacated;
2. Plaintiff’s motion to continue, construed as a request for extension of time in which to
file an opposition, (ECF No. 29), is granted in part. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant
Gweon’s motion to dismiss by July 9, 2015.
3. The motions will be submitted on the record after the time for filing opposition and
replies have passed.
Dated: June 10, 2015
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff’s motion was previously noticed for June 4, 2015; however, plaintiff subsequently renoticed it. (ECF No. 17.)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?