Pagtakhan et al v. Burlingame Police Department et al

Filing 67

ORDER PERMITTING FURTHER WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO PENDING MOTIONS, AND VACATING HEARING DATES (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

MARLON E. PAGTAKHAN,

11
12
13
14
15

No. C 08-2188 SI (pr)

Plaintiff,

ORDER PERMITTING FURTHER
WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO
PENDING MOTIONS, AND
VACATING HEARING DATES

v.
JOHN DOE, detective; et al.,
Defendants.
/

16

There are now pending four motions to dismiss (Docket # 43, # 46, # 55, and # 59), a

17

motion for summary judgment (Docket # 58), and a motion for judgment on the pleadings

18

(Docket # 66) from the several defendants remaining in this action. Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs

19

were due on September 13, 2013. Plaintiff Marlon Pagtakhan filed a 3-page “objection &

20

opposition to defendants’ motions” that had a very cursory argument about the motions, and

21

stated that he would “move for oral argument on the said [hearing] date regarding such motions

22

should this Honorable court [tentatively] entertain the notion of granting the said motions

23

submitted, whether in full or in part.” Docket # 64 at 1 (second brackets and italics in source).

24

Plaintiff’s proposed plan of action is unacceptable.

25

This court does not use a tentative ruling system. A party who chooses to wait for the

26

court’s indication on a motion does so at his own peril because this court will issue only the final

27

ruling on a motion, after which time it will be too late to submit any argument with regard to that

28

ruling. Here, the court set a briefing schedule for the dispositive motions, and plaintiff was

1

required to include all his arguments in his written opposition. He is not permitted to simply

2

wait until a hearing is held or until after the court rules to make his arguments known to the

3

court, if he wants those arguments to be considered.
Out of an abundance of caution, the court will give plaintiff another opportunity to file

5

any opposition brief(s) he wishes to file. Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition brief(s) no

6

later than October 18, 2013. If plaintiff does not file any opposition brief(s), the court will

7

consider plaintiff’s three-page objection/opposition at Docket # 64 to be the only opposition to

8

defendants’ motions. The opposition brief(s) must comply with the page and formatting limits

9

set forth in the court’s order of service, see Docket # 39 at 9 & n.3. Plaintiff may file a separate

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

opposition brief for each pending motion, or may file a single opposition brief addressing all of

11

the motions. However, if he files more than one opposition brief, he must limit the argument in

12

each opposition brief to only one motion and must specify the motion to which the argument

13

relates on the first page of such an opposition – for example, he could label a brief as an

14

“opposition brief to Hove motion to dismiss at Docket # 43." Defendants must file and serve

15

any reply briefs no later than November 1, 2013.

16

The hearing dates set for the motions to dismiss, motion for summary judgment and

17

motion for judgment on the pleadings are now VACATED. The pending motions will be

18

resolved on the written briefs from the parties, without an oral argument.

19

The objection/opposition that was filed was signed only by plaintiff Marlon Estacio

20

Pagtakhan. The two other remaining plaintiffs, Purificacion Pagtakhan and Sara Marie French,

21

failed to sign the document. The court has twice cautioned that all documents from plaintiff

22

must be signed by all plaintiffs, and will not do so again. See Docket # 35 at 3; Docket # 39 at

23

12. All the plaintiffs must sign all the filings because plaintiff Marlon Pagtakhan cannot

24

represent co-plaintiffs or sign court filings on behalf of other plaintiffs. See generally Russell

25

v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) ("a litigant appearing in propria persona has no

26

authority to represent anyone other than himself"). Plaintiff Purification Pagtakhan is now

27
28

2

1

notified that she will be dismissed from this action if she does not sign every document filed by

2

the plaintiffs. Plaintiff Sara Marie French is now notified that she will be dismissed from this

3

action if she does not sign every document filed by the plaintiffs.

4

Finally, the court notes that plaintiff Marlon Pagtakhan’s decision to wait for a tentative

5

ruling and the other plaintiffs’ failure to sign the limited objection/opposition that was filed

6

reflect a failure to follow court orders. Even though they are proceeding pro se plaintiffs must

7

comply with court orders and Local Rules. Failure to comply with court orders and Local Rules

8

can result in monetary and non-monetary sanctions being imposed on a party.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3