Weiss v. City of Santa Rosa Police Department et al

Filing 173

ORDER RE: OUTSTANDING MOTIONS. No further filings by either party will be permitted until the Court rules on the pending motions. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the striking of the filing. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/27/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

TERRY L. WEISS,
Plaintiff,

7

10

ORDER RE: OUTSTANDING MOTIONS

vs.

8
9

CASE NO. 15-cv-01639-YGR

CITY OF SANTA ROSA POLICE
DEPARTMENT, ET AL.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pursuant to its prior Order re: Briefing on Outstanding Motions, the Court is in receipt of:

13

(i) the City Defendants’ “Reply Brief Pursuant to Order re: Briefing on Outstanding Motions

14

[FRCP 56]” (Dkt. No. 168); and (ii) “Plaintiff’s Objection to the City Motion for Partial or

15

Summary Judgment and Questions” (Dkt. Nos. 172, 172-1).1 In light of these filings, the Court

16

deems briefing on the City Defendants’ pending motions, (Dkt. Nos. 137, 145, 148), to be

17

completed.

18
19
20

Accordingly, no further filings by either party will be permitted until the Court rules on the
pending motions. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the striking of the filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: September 27, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Even though the Court’s prior order provided that the “City Defendants shall be allowed
to file a single reply to plaintiff’s response, including the aforementioned update, within 14 days
after her update is filed,” the City Defendants filed their reply before plaintiff’s updated response
was filed. (Dkt. No. 164 (emphasis supplied).)