Thompson v. Brennan

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AND VACATING NOVEMBER 30, 2017 HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Show Cause Response due by 12/1/2017. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/17/17. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRIAN THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-03798-EMC

v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AND
VACATING NOVEMBER 30, 2017
HEARING ON DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Docket No. 11
12
13

Plaintiff has not filed a timely opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss or sought an

14

extension from the Court. See Docket No. 11. On November 9, 2017, the Court attempted to

15

contact Plaintiff’s counsel to determine whether an opposition would be filed. Plaintiff’s counsel

16

responded to the Court on November 13, 2017 stating she intended to file an opposition and

17

inquired about the appropriate process. The Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to contact

18

Defendant to attempt to reach a stipulation. The Court informed Plaintiff’s counsel that if no

19

stipulation were reached, an appropriate motion for relief would need to be filed in accordance

20

with the Local Rules. As of this date, no stipulation or request for relief has been filed.

21

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the November 30, 2017 hearing on Defendant’s

22

motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 11.

23

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed

24

without prejudice for failure to oppose Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Farraj v. Cunningham,

25

659 Fed.Appx. 925 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal based on plaintiff’s failure to oppose

26

motion to dismiss); Frantz v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n., 549 Fed.Appx. 663 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming

27

dismissal based on plaintiff’s failure to oppose motion to dismiss or timely seek an extension). In

28

the response, Plaintiff shall also address the merits of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s

1

response must be filed no later than December 1, 2017. Defendant’s reply to Plaintiff’s response,

2

if any, must be filed by December 8, 2017. A hearing, if any, will be set by further order of the

3

Court.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 17, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2