Canedo v. Avis Budget Group Inc et al

Filing 21

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/8/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

15
16

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 14-02921 SI

EDDIE CANEDO,

v.
AVIS BUDGET GROUP INC., et al.,
Defendants.

/

17
18

Plaintiff initially filed this case in San Mateo County Superior Court on March 28, 2014, and

19

defendants removed the case to this Court on June 25, 2014. Docket No 1. Defendants filed a motion

20

to dismiss on July 1, 2014 with a hearing scheduled for August 8, 2014. Docket No. 13. Due to

21

plaintiff’s counsel’s plans to be out of the country from July 23, 2014 to August 12, 2014, the parties

22

stipulated to continue the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket No. 15. The Court

23

approved the stipulation, and the hearing was continued to August 22, 2014. Docket No. 16. The

24

briefing schedule remained unchanged, with plaintiff’s response due July 15, 2014.

25

Plaintiff’s counsel failed to file his response by the briefing deadline and on August 6, 2014, the

26

Court issued a notice inquiring why. Docket No. 17. Plaintiff’s counsel filed an opposition to

27

defendants’ motion on August 7, 2014. Docket No. 19. However, the opposition fails to address

28

defendants’ arguments and states only that the “complaint states sufficient facts to support causes of

1

action against Teamster Local Union 665 for 1) discrimination, 2) retaliation, 3) aiding and abetting,

2

and 4) failure to prevent discrimination.” Id. at 3.

3

Plaintiff’s opposition paper memo is unclear as to which issues are in dispute and does not

4

respond to the arguments presented in defendants’ motion to dismiss. It appears that plaintiff’s counsel

5

was unable to draft a complete opposition due to illness and international travel.

6

The Court therefore continues the motion hearing scheduled for August 22, 2014 to September

7

19, 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss

8

by August 27, 2014. The Court directs plaintiff’s counsel to specifically respond to each

9

challenged allegation. Defendants’ reply must be filed by September 3, 2014.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: August 8, 2014

14

SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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