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)

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