Henderson et al v. San Francisco Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 451

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why 445 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF JANEL GOTTA [RULE 54(B)] should not be granted (vrwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On March 24, 2009, defendants moved for entry of separate judgment against plaintiff Janel Gotta. Doc #445. On April 21, EARNEST HENDERSON, JANEL GOTTA, AARON RAULS, MICHAEL PEREZ, ARTURO PLEITEZ, Plaintiffs, v CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES, SHERIFF MICHAEL HENNESSEY, DEPUTY GLENN YOUNG, DEPUTY MIGUEL PRADO, DEPUTY LARRY NAPATA, AND DOES 1-11, Defendants. / No C 05-0234 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2009, counsel for the other plaintiffs in this case filed proof of service of defendants' motion (Doc #449) on Gotta. Pursuant to

Civil L R 7-3(a), plaintiff had until April 23 to file a memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion. Plaintiff did not file a

memorandum in opposition or a statement of nonopposition.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The hearing set for May 14 on defendants' motion to dismiss is VACATED. Gotta is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, not

later than May 28, 2009, why defendants' motion for entry of separate judgment (Doc #445) should not be granted. Failure to

respond will be deemed grounds to grant defendants' motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge

2