Lepp et al v. Yuba County et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/14/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff's Request for an Extension of time to respond to Defendants' Motions 35 is GRANTED. The hearing of defendants Yuba County, Strang, Ajax, and Vroman an d Olivera's MOTIONS to DISMISS and/or STRIKE 23 , 24 , 26 , 34 and Plaintiffs' MOTIONS for Injunctive relief 11 , 12 is CONTIINUED to 1/10/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than 12/20/2017, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants Yuba County, Strang, Ajax, and Vroman's MOTIONS. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the pending motions, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than 12/20/17. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiffs' opposition, if any, on or before 1/3/18. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
REVEREND HEIDI LEPP, et al.,
No. 2:17-cv-1317-GEB-EFB PS
YUBA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants the County of Yuba, Jeremy Strang, Lori Ajax, and Michael Vroman moved
to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). ECF
Nos. 23, 24, 26. Defendant Vroman also moved to strike all unrepresented plaintiffs pursuant to
Rule 12(f) (ECF No. 26), and defendant Chris Monaco moved to set aside the entry of his default
(ECF No. 21). These motions, as well as plaintiffs’ motions for injunctive relief, were set for
hearing on October 4, 2017.
In violation of Local Rule 230(c), plaintiffs failed to file an opposition or statement of
non-opposition to defendants’ motions. Accordingly, the hearing the motions was continued to
November 22, 2017, and plaintiffs were ordered, by no later than November 8, 2017, to file an
opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions and show cause why sanctions should
not be impose for failure to timely file response to the pending motions. ECF No. 33. Thereafter,
defendant Brandon Olivera filed a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) and to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which he noticed for hearing on November 22, 2017. ECF
On November 7, 2017, instead of filing a response to defendants’ motions and the court’s
order to show cause, plaintiffs Heidi Grossman-Lepp, Charles Edward Lepp, and Aaron
O’Connor filed a request for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ motions. ECF No.
35. Plaintiffs claim that additional time is needed to sufficiently and accurately address
defendants’ motions. In light of their pro se status, plaintiffs’ request is granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time to respond to defendants’ motions (ECF No.
35) is granted.
2. The hearing defendants Yuba County, Strang, Ajax, and Vroman and Olivera’s
motions to dismiss and/or strike (ECF No. 23, 24, 26, 34) and plaintiffs’ motions for injunctive
relief (ECF No. 11, 12) is continued to January 10, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.
3. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than December 20, 2017, why sanctions
should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to
defendants Yuba County, Strang, Ajax, and Vroman’s motions.
4. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the pending motions, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than December 20, 2017.
5. Failure to file an opposition to the motions will be deemed a statement of non-
opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that defendants’ motions be granted
and/or the action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court
orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
6. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, on or before January 3,
DATED: November 14, 2017.
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?