Williams v. County of Alameda, The et al
Filing
43
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 40 Motion for Leave to File; denying 18 Motion to Dismiss (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2013)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
8
CURTIS D. WILLIAMS, an individual,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
vs.
Case No: C 12-02511 SBA
ORDER
Docket 18, 40
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
On May 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
14
complaint. Dkt. 40. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, any opposition to the motion was due by
15
no later than fourteen days after the motion was filed, i.e., May 22, 2013. This Court's
16
Standing Orders specifically warn that "[t]he failure of the opposing party to file a
17
memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute a
18
consent to the granting of the motion." Civil Standing Orders at 4, Dkt. 2.
19
Notwithstanding the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-3 and this Court's Standing Orders,
20
no Defendant has filed an opposition to Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
21
amended complaint.
22
Accordingly,
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
24
1.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is
25
GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file the proposed second amended complaint by no later than
26
seven (7) days from the date this Order is filed.
27
2.
28
MOOT.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is DENIED as
1
3.
This Order terminates Docket 18 and Docket 40.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/29/13
_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?