Morrow v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 51

ORDER (1) DIRECTING Defendants to File Reply Brief and (2) CONTINUING Hearings on 39 Defendants' motion to dismiss and 46 Plaintiff's motion to stay. The court ORDERS as follows: 1. Defendants shall file a reply to Mr. Morrows oppositi on by May 14, 2012. 2. The hearings on Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Morrow's Second Amended Complaint and Mr. Morrow's motion to stay are continued to June 7, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States Di strict Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102. Motion Hearing set for 6/7/2012 11:00 AM in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 4/27/2012. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco
FRANK MORROW,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 11-02351 LB

v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

15

ORDER (1) DIRECTING
DEFENDANTS TO FILE REPLY
BRIEF AND (2) CONTINUING
HEARINGS ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY

Defendants.
[Re: ECF Nos. 39, 46]

16

_____________________________________/

17

On May 12, 2011, pro se plaintiff Frank Morrow sued the City of Oakland, California (“City of

18

Oakland”) and numerous individuals (the “Individual Defendants”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for

19

violation of state and federal law in relation to his employment as an Oakland police officer. See

20

Original Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 After the court dismissed his First Amended Complaint, Mr.

21

Morrow filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 17, 2012. Second Amended Complaint

22

(“SAC”), ECF No. 38; see First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 6. On March 8, 2012,

23

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Morrow’s Second Amended Complaint. Motion to

24

Dismiss SAC, ECF No. 39. Hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for May 2, 2012.

25
26

On April 18, 2012, Mr. Morrow filed a motion to stay the case. Motion to Stay, ECF No. 46.
Mr. Morrow noticed the motion for hearing on May 17, 2012 in violation of this District’s Civil

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronic page
number at the top of the document, not the pages at the bottom.
C 11-02351

1

Local Rules. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-2(a) (stating that motions may not be noticed for hearing

2

sooner than 35 days after service of the motion). Defendants filed an opposition on April 20, 2012.

3

Opposition to Stay, ECF No. 50.

4

On April 26, 2012, Mr. Morrow filed an untimely opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.2

5

Given the preference for actions to be resolved on their merits, the court finds good cause to accept

6

the untimely opposition. Because Mr. Morrow filed the opposition so close to the May 2, 2012

7

hearing date, the court ORDERS as follows:

8

1. Defendants shall file a reply to Mr. Morrow’s opposition by May 14, 2012.

9

2. The hearings on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Morrow’s Second Amended Complaint and

Floor, United States District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102.

12
For the Northern District of California

Mr. Morrow’s motion to stay are continued to June 7, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom C, 15th

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: April 27, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

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

2

Mr. Morrow’s opposition has not yet been uploaded to the court’s ECF system, but the
hardcopy received by the court does bear the Clerk of the Court’s stamp indicating that it was filed
at 2:58 p.m. on April 26, 2012. The court assumes that the opposition will be uploaded to the ECF
system on Monday, April 30, 2012. Any issues concerning service of the opposition shall be taken
up on that date.
C 11-02351

2