King v. Hensley et al

Filing 32

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 28 MOTION to Dismiss , 20 MOTION to Dismiss , 22 MOTION to Strike 1 Complaint . Responses due by 4/9/2013. Repl ies due by 4/16/2013. Motion Hearing set for 4/30/2013 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The 3/26/2013 hearing date is VACATED. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 3/22/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN LABRUCE KING, Case No.: 13-CV-051 YGR 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE vs. 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 HUCK HENSLEY, et al., Defendants. On February 15, 2013, Defendant Huck Hensley (“Hensley”) filed his Motion to Dismiss, 14 seeking to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state claims against Hensley for 15 breach of contract, retaliatory eviction, or attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 20.) On February 19, 2013, 16 Defendant Huck Hensley filed his Motion to Strike portions of the complaint titled “Sebastopol 17 History,” 5:17-8:22 as immaterial to the claims alleged. (Dkt. No. 22.) Hearing on these motions 18 was set for March 26, 2013. No opposition has been filed. 19 On March 11, 2013, Defendant Brian D. Hall (“Hall”) filed his Motion to Dismiss on the 20 grounds that, according to the terms of a document attached thereto, captioned “Settlement 21 Agreement and Court Order” and marked “Filed February 5, 2013 Superior Court of California, 22 County of Sonoma.” Hall contends that Plaintiff John LaBruce King agreed to dismiss the instant 23 action, as stated on page four, by February 20, 2013. Again, no opposition has been filed. However, 24 this motion was filed with insufficient notice to the other parties. See Northern District Civ. Local 25 Rule 7-2(a). 26 In light of the foregoing, the Court will allow Plaintiff to file an opposition to the Motions to 27 Dismiss and the Motion to Strike no later than April 9, 2013. Failure to file an opposition by that 28 date will result in dismissal of the action against these Defendants] for failure to prosecute. Any 1 reply to an opposition must be served and filed not more than 7 days after the opposition is served 2 and filed. Civ. L.R. 7-3(c). 3 The hearing date of March 26, 2013, is hereby CONTINUED to April 30, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: March 22, 2013 ____________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 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?