Adams v. Vivo, Inc. et al

Filing 27

ORDER. Motions terminated: 23 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Mark Adams.Replies due by 7/12/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/26/2012. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
MARK ADAMS,

12
13

Plaintiff(s),
v.

14

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS

VIVO INC,

15

No. C 12-01854 DMR

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

16
17

On May 4, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. [Docket Nos. 6,

18

14.] Plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on May 18, 2005. See N.D. Cal.

19

Civ. L.R. 7-3. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, made no filings. On June 4, 2012, the court

20

ordered Plaintiff to show cause by June 15, 2012 as to why he failed to respond to Defendants'

21

motion. The court also ordered Plaintiff to simultaneously "(1) submit his opposition to the court

22

with a request for leave to file a late opposition, or (2) file a statement of non-opposition to the

23

motion." [Docket No. 17.]

24

On June 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an opposition to Defendants'

25

motion to dismiss. [Docket No. 23.] He did not attach his proposed opposition as the court ordered.

26

In his motion, Plaintiff asserts that he did not timely file his opposition because the courtroom

27

deputy should have advised him of the deadlines set forth in the Court's Local Rules. This is

28

incorrect. All litigants, even those proceeding without counsel, are expected to review the Rules.

1

The court directs Plaintiff to The Court's Pro Se Handbook, which he can find under the Quick Link

2

"If You Don't Have a Lawyer" on the Court's webpage at www.cand.uscourts.gov.

3

Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition to Defendants' motion by July 3, 2012 and to ensure

4

that Defendants receive it that same day. Defendants' reply is due July 12, 2012, and the hearing

5

will proceed as scheduled on July 26, 2012. Plaintiff's motion for leave is denied as moot and the

6

accompanying June 28, 2012 hearing vacated.

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

2

RN

R NIA

LI

For the Northern District of California

. Ryu

onna M
Judge D

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
E

12

H

United States District Court

RT

11

Dated: June 26, 2012

NO

10

A

9

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

FO

S
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

8

RT
U
O

7

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C