Gonzalez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al

Filing 24

ORDER as to 21 MOTION to Dismiss Renotice Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support MOTION to Dismiss Renotice Defe ndants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support MOTION to Dismiss Renotice Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(B)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support. Responses due by 9/16/2011. Replies due by 9/30/2011. Motion Hearing set for 10/28/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 8/29/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
RAMON GONZALEZ,

10

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12
13

No. C 11-03561 JSW

v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., et al.

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND CONTINUING
HEARING

Defendants.
/

14
15

On July 20, 2011, this case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of

16

California for the County of Alameda. On July 27, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,

17

which was noticed for hearing on August 30, 2011 before Magistrate Judge Laporte, and

18

Defendants served a copy of the motion and the related papers by mail on Plaintiff, who is

19

proceeding pro se. (See Docket Nos. 6-8, 10.)

20

On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff declined to proceed before Magistrate Judge Laporte, and

21

the case was reassigned to the undersigned. Thereafter, instead of merely filing a new notice of

22

hearing, Defendants re-filed all of the papers associated with their motion to dismiss and set the

23

matter for hearing on September 9, 2011. Because that date was not an open date on this

24

Court’s calendar, Defendants were required to notice the motion for a new date.

25

Defendants again did not merely file a new notice of hearing and instead re-filed all of

26

the papers associated with their motion to dismiss. The motion is now scheduled to be heard on

27

September 23, 2011. (See Docket Nos. 17-19, 21-23.) Under Northern District Local Rule 7-

28

3(a), an opposition to a motion “must be served an filed not more than 14 days after the motion

1

is served and filed.” Because Plaintiff is pro se, if Defendants served Plaintiff by mail, an

2

additional three days would be added to the time in which Plaintiff would be required to

3

respond. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 5-5(a)(2) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d)). Although there is proof of

4

service on Plaintiff with respect to the motion originally filed, there is no proof of service as to

5

the subsequently filed motions.

6

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and because Defendants have repeatedly filed

7

their motion to dismiss, the Court issues this Order to clarify any confusion arising from these

8

repeated filings.

9

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ opposition brief to the motion papers docketed as docket nos. 21
to 23 shall be due by no later than September 16, 2011. Defendants’ reply shall be due by no

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

later than September 30, 2011.

12

Tthe Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing from September 23, 2011 at 9:00 a.m.

13

to October 28, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. If any party seeks to modify this briefing schedule or to

14

continue the hearing date, they must submit a request to the Court demonstrating good cause for

15

any such request.

16
17
18

Defendants are admonished that, in the future, they must file proof of service as to all
papers served on Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: August 29, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6 RAMON GONZALEZ,

Case Number: CV11-03561 JSW

Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
8

v.

9 BAC HOME LOANS et al,
Defendant.

/

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
13
That on August 29, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
14 placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter
listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an
15 inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17

Ramon Gonzalez
18 647 Tamarack Drive
Union City, CA 94587
19
Dated: August 29, 2011
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk