Chrisanthis v. Cason et al

Filing 42

ORDER REGARDING BRIEFINGS FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ANTHONY CHRISANTHIS, Plaintiff, v. DR. BRIAN CASON, IRVING SPIVEY, and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants. / ORDER REGARDING BRIEFINGS FOR DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS No. C 08-02472 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

On August 4, 2008, defendants filed a "Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment." (Dkt. No. 15). Plaintiff submitted no opposition. On August 22, 2008, defendants filed a reply and notice of non-receipt of opposition (Dkt. No. 24). Upon a request by plaintiff, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file a late response. Instead of filing an opposition, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, as plaintiff was entitled to do as a matter of course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). The Court re-set the briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss, if defendants were to re-notice it, and set a new hearing date for the motion. Plaintiff filed a request for a continuance of the new briefing schedule and hearing date because plaintiff's attorney had been assigned "lifer" cases at California State Prison-Solano, and plaintiff indicated that the State of California had insufficient time to reassign the matters to a new attorney. The Court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing for October 30. Defendants noticed a renewed motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition was due October 9. Plaintiff failed to submit a timely opposition. On October 10, defendants filed a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

notice of non-receipt of opposition requesting dismissal of the case, inter alia, because defendants' motion was unopposed and plaintiff has failed to prosecute the case. Also on October 10, plaintiff filed its opposition. The Court repeatedly has warned the parties regarding late filings, and plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss was again untimely. Plaintiff must respond to defendants' notice of non-receipt, request leave to file a late opposition and show cause for its late filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Dated: October 20, 2008

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE