Pinzon v. Mendocino Coast Clinics Inc. et al

Filing 61

ORDER VACATING HEARING re 57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by State of California, Department of Health Care Services, Medical Dental Services Division. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 4, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2016)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ABRAHAM G. PINZON, Case No. 14-cv-05504-JST Plaintiff, 5 ORDER VACATING HEARING v. 6 7 8 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, MEDICAL DENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, et al., Re: ECF No. 57 Defendants. Before the Court is Defendant California Department of Health Care Services’s Motion to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Dismiss. ECF No. 57. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7- 12 1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. The hearing on this 13 matter, currently scheduled for January 14, 2016, is hereby VACATED. 14 If, however, any party advises the Court in writing by no later than two days from the date 15 of this Order that most or all of the argument for its side will be conducted by a lawyer who has 16 been licensed to practice law for five or fewer years, and who has not previously presented 17 argument before this Court, then the Court will reschedule the hearing at a time that is convenient 18 to all parties in order to provide that opportunity. Counsel shall confer with each other, and the 19 party requesting the rescheduling of the hearing shall identify the upcoming available dates on the 20 Court’s calendar at which all counsel are available for the hearing. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2016 _____________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?