Nnachi v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 35

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS BY NO LATER THAN 7/23/2014. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 07/09/2014. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/9/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

OLUCHI NNACHI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO,

Case No.: 4:13-cv-05582-KAW
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
BY NO LATER THAN JULY 23, 2014

Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Oluchi Nnachi proceeds pro se in the above-captioned case. On June 13, 2014
the City and County of San Francisco ("Defendant") filed a motion to dismiss. The motion is set
for hearing on August 7, 2014.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on June 30, 2014. On
July 2, 2014, Defendant filed a notice indicating that as of July 2, 2014, Plaintiff had not filed an
opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. (Def.'s Notice, Dkt. No. 33.) On that basis,
Defendant requested that the motion be granted as unopposed. (Id.)
On July 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document captioned "Opposition to Defendant,s [sic]
City & County of San Francisco Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff,s [sic] Second Amended Complaint."
(Pl.'s Opp'n, Dkt. No. 34.) In the filing, Plaintiff indicates that he did not receive a copy of the
motion to dismiss and instead first learned about the motion when Defendant filed its July 2, 2014
notice. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff states that "[i]t is possible the defendant mailed the motion to [his]
address, but something went wrong in the delivery system that [he] cannot control." (Id.)
Plaintiff also indicates that in the parties' joint case management conference statement, he
"made it clear that [he] will oppose any future memorandum from the defendant to the court to

1

dismiss this case" and that "[b]ecause [they] have already in good faith exchanged what each

2

party intends to do in the joint case management conference of 05/13/14, the motion to dismiss

3

should be denied and plaintiff be given time by the court to oppose the motion in another forum if

4

allowed by the court." (Id.) He adds that he does "not think the defendant will suffer any

5

prejudive [sic] by re-issuing the motion again . . . ." (Id.)

6

The certificate of service Defendant filed in connection with its motion to dismiss shows

7

that the motion papers were mailed to Plaintiff's address of record. (Certificate of Service, Dkt.

8

No. 30.) To the extent that Plaintiff claims that he did not receive a copy of the motion papers

9

due to an issue outside of his control, Plaintiff is on notice that he is responsible for taking
whatever steps are necessary to ensure that he has a reliable address where he can receive filings

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

in this case. To avoid any future issues with his mail service, Plaintiff may also request

12

permission to file and receive court papers electronically as set forth in Civil Local Rule 5-1(b) (a

13

pro se party may file and receive court papers electronically after filing a motion, and being

14

granted, permission to do so). If Plaintiff still has not received a copy of Defendants' moving

15

papers, he may review a copy at the Clerk's Office for a fee, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 5-

16

1(c)(5)(B) ("Any person may review at the Clerk's Office all filings, electronic or paper, that have

17

not been sealed by the Court.").

18

Notwithstanding any joint case management conference statement that has been filed in

19

this case, if Plaintiff wishes to oppose the pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiff shall file an

20

opposition to the motion by no later than July 23, 2014. If Plaintiff does not file an opposition,

21

the Court may grant the motion as unopposed. See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶

22

21 (“The failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in

23

opposition to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion”). The August 7,

24

2014 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED.

25

If Plaintiff requires assistance with preparing his opposition to the motion to dismiss, he

26

may wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants in presenting their

27

case. This manual, and other free information, is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/

28

2

1

proselitigants. Plaintiff may also wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project's Help Desk—a

2

free service for pro se litigants—by calling [phone].

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2014

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3