Ortiz v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/24/17: The June 1, 2017 hearing on Motion to dismiss is VACATED. Request to appear telephonically at the hearing is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion no later than June 8, 2017.(Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RENE ORTIZ, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-713-TLN-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC. 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Presently pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was noticed 19 for hearing on June 1, 2017. (ECF Nos. 3, 6.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff was 20 required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion no later than fourteen 21 (14) days prior to the hearing, i.e., by May 18, 2017. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Although that 22 deadline has passed, the court’s records reveal that no opposition or statement of non-opposition 23 to the motion was filed. 24 The court has considered whether the case should be dismissed or other sanctions imposed 25 based on plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion and comply with the Local Rules. Nevertheless, 26 in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and the court’s desire to resolve the action on the merits, the 27 court finds it appropriate to provide plaintiff with an additional, final opportunity to oppose the 28 motion. 1 1 dingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: S O Accord 2 1. The June 1, 2017 hearing on defendant motion to dismiss is V o t’s o VACATED, and 3 def fendant’s cou unsel’s requ to appea telephonic uest ar cally at that h hearing is DE ENIED 4 WI ITHOUT PR REJUDICE as moot. a 5 6 2. Pla aintiff shall file an oppos f sition or stat tement of non-opposition to the moti no later n ion tha June 8, 20 an 017. 7 3. An reply brief by defenda shall be d no later than June 22 2017. ny ant due 2, 8 4. Thereafter, the motion will be submitte for decisi on the record and wr l ed ion ritten 9 briefing pursua to Local Rule 230(g) If the cour subsequen determin that ant ). rt ntly nes 10 sup pplemental briefing or or argument is necessar the partie will be not b ral t ry, es tified. 11 5. Fai ilure to timely file an op pposition or s statement of non-opposition to the m f motion to 12 dis smiss will be construed as plaintiff’s consent to d e a dismissal of the action a will f and 13 res in dismis of the ac sult ssal ction with pr rejudice purs suant to Fed deral Rule of Civil f 14 Pro ocedure 41(b b). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERE S ED. Da ated: May 24, 2017 2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?