Carias v. United States of America

Filing 39

ORDER Granting Additional Time to File Reply by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

RICARDA CARIAS,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-05274-EDL
ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL
TIME TO FILE REPLY

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

On May 16, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action. Dkt. No. 36. Pursuant

12

to Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on May 31, 2016. Plaintiff did not timely file

13

any opposition, and on June 7 Defendant filed a reply brief pointing out the lack of opposition and

14

reiterating the points made in its original motion. Dkt. No. 37. Later in the day after the reply

15

brief was filed, and a week late, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 38.

16

The Court has previously cautioned Plaintiff that he must strictly adhere to the Federal

17

Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of this Court. See Dkt. No. 35 at 5. Plaintiff’s

18

failure to timely oppose the Motion to Dismiss flies in the face of this explicit warning and it

19

would be within the Court’s discretion to strike the untimely opposition. Nevertheless, in the

20

interest of justice and in light of the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their

21

merits, the Court will consider the opposition. Defendant shall have until June 14 to file a reply

22

brief addressing the points raised in Plaintiff’s opposition.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 8, 2016

25
26
27
28

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge