Pagtakhan et al v. Burlingame Police Department et al

Filing 99

ORDER RE: BRIEFING ON PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/24/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARLON E. PAGTAKHAN; et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 08-2188 SI (pr)
ORDER RE. BRIEFING ON PENDING
MOTION TO DISMISS

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

12
13

Defendants Witt and City of Burlingame filed a motion to dismiss the second amended

14

complaint on January 2, 2014. When the court has not set a different briefing schedule, the

15

parties must comply with the deadlines in the Local Rules. Under Northern District of California

16

Local Rule 7-3(a), "[t]he opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the

17

motion was filed." Plaintiffs missed the deadline to file their opposition to the motion to dismiss.

18

In the interest of justice, the court will once again excuse the failure to comply with the local

19

rules because the plaintiffs are proceeding pro se. However, the court has repeatedly warned

20

plaintiffs of the need to comply with court orders and local rules, see Docket # 67 at 2-3, and

21

will not further warn them. The court now sets the following new briefing schedule on the

22

motion to dismiss: Plaintiffs must file and serve their opposition to the motion to dismiss no later

23

than February 3, 2014. Defendants must file and serve their reply (if any) no later than

24

February 12, 2014. The hearing scheduled for February 28, 2014 for defendants' motion to

25

dismiss is now VACATED. The court will decide the matter on the parties' written submissions.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 2014

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge