Patten v. Hancock

Filing 24

ORDER TO PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE and Order VACATING Hearing on 14 , 16 and 23 Motion and Corrected Motions to Dismiss. Parties' Responses to Order to Show Cause due by 12/7/2015. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 24, 2015. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEON PATTEN,

Case No. 15-cv-04022-JSW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
VACATING HEARING DATE

v.
9
10

LELAND W. HANCOCK, et al.,

Re: Docket Nos. 14, 16, 23

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On October 23, 2015, Defendants Leland W. Hancock and Beverly J. Hancock filed a

14

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which was scheduled to be heard on

15

December 11, 2015. (Docket No. 14.) On November 20, 2015, Defendants filed a “Corrected

16

Motion to Dismiss,” and on November 23, 2015, filed a second “Corrected Motion to Dismiss,”

17

for which they maintained the hearing date of December 11, 2015. For the reasons set forth in this

18

Order, the Court HEREBY VACATES that hearing date pending a ruling on the orders to show

19

cause set forth in the following paragraphs.

20

1.

Defendants have not included any explanation of how the original motion to

21

dismiss has been “corrected,” including whether any of the corrections are substantive or merely

22

clerical. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Defendants to show cause in writing by

23

December 7, 2015, why the Court should not strike those motions from the record and rule only on

24

the original motion to dismiss.

25

2.

Under the Northern District Civil Local Rules, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’

26

original motion was due on November 6, 2015. Plaintiff did not file an opposition on that date.

27

Rather, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendant’s original motion on November 20, 2015.

28

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by December 7,

1
2
3
4
5

201 why the Court should accept the untimely br
15,
rief.
The Co shall issu a further order addres
ourt
ue
o
ssing how th matter sha proceed a
his
all
after it
con
nsiders the parties’ respo
p
onses.
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Novemb 24, 2015
ber
5

6
__
___________
__________
____
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

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
2