Katyal v. Donahoe et al

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/9/17 ORDERING that the 1/13/17 Order to Show Cause 15 is DISCHARGED and no sanctionsare imposed; Plaintiff's Request for an extension of time to respond to defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 16 is GRANTED; the hearing on defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 13 is CONTINUED to 3/15/17; Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 3/1/17; Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a Recommendation that defendant's motion be granted and/or the action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with courtorders and this court's Local Rules; Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 3/8,/17. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PRASHANT KATYAL,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-1021-TLN-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service,
Defendants.

17
18

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and noticed the motion for hearing on

19

January 25, 2015. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-

20

opposition to the motion in violation of Local Rule 230. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion

21

for summary judgment was continued to February 15, 2017, and plaintiff was ordered to show

22

cause, in writing, by no later than February 1, 2017, why sanction should not be imposed for his

23

failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. ECF

24

No. 15. Plaintiff was also ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition by

25

February 1, 2017, and admonished that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement

26

of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id.

27
28

In response, plaintiff explains that a medical condition prevented him from timely filing
an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. ECF No. 16. He further
1

1

states that he is scheduled to undergo back surgery, and therefore he requires an additional 30

2

days to respond to the pending motion. In light of plaintiff’s representations, the order to show

3

cause is discharged and no sanctions are imposed. Further, the court grants plaintiff’s request for

4

additional time to respond to defendant’s motion.

5

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

6

1. The January 13, 2017 order to show cause (ECF No. 15) is discharged and no sanctions

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

are imposed.
2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond to defendant’s motion for
summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is granted.
3. The hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is continued
to March 15, 2017.
4. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than March 1, 2017.
5. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-

15

opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that defendant’s motion be granted

16

and/or the action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court

17

orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

18
19

6. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before March 8, 2017.
DATED: February 6, 2017.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2