Mendenhall et al v. City and County of San Francisco

Filing 19

AMENDED ORDER RE HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS re 18 Order (Reply due 12/7/11). Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/15/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JANICE MENDENHALL, et al.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-4029 EMC

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

AMENDED ORDER RE HEARING AND
BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Defendant's reply due December 7, 2011)

12
13

Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
15

Defendant City and County of San Francisco's ("CCSF") motions to dismiss are currently set

16

for hearing before the Court on November 28, 2011. Docket Nos. 9, 13.1 Plaintiffs have not filed an

17

opposition, and have orally represented to the Court that they did not receive a copy of Defendants'

18

motion. Although the proof of service appears valid, the Court will, in the interest of justice,

19

provide pro se Plaintiffs an opportunity to respond to the motion. Accordingly, the Court hereby

20

enters the following order:

21

(1)

Defendant's motion to dismiss shall be re-set for hearing before the Court on Friday,

22

December 16, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate

23

Avenue, San Francisco, California.

24

(2)

25

Plaintiffs Mendenhall and Cato shall file their opposition to Defendant's motion no
later than Wednesday, November 30, 2011.

26
27
28

1

The two motions appear identical, and the amended motion filed on October 14 merely set
a new hearing date before the newly assigned judge. Accordingly, the Court will refer to the
October 14 amended motion as the operative motion.

1

(3)

2

For the parties' convenience, the Court attaches Defendant's amended motion to dismiss to

3
4
5

Defendant shall file its reply no later than Wednesday, December 7, 2011.

this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2011

6
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
MENDENHALL et al,
4

Case Number: CV11-04029 EMC
Plaintiff,

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.

6
7
8

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et
al,
Defendant.

/

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on November 15, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 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 inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
Janice Mendenhall
P.O. Box 24370
San Francisco, CA 94124

16

18

Mark Cato
P.O. Box 24370
San Francisco, CA 94124

19

Dated: November 15, 2011

17

20

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Betty Lee, Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3