Patten v. Hancock

Filing 28

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND SETTING DEADLINE FOR REPLY AND HEARING ON 23 Corrected MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Replies due by 12/18/2015. Motion Hearing set for 1/22/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on December 7, 2015. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEON PATTEN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
LELAND W. HANCOCK, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 15-cv-04022-JSW
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE, SETTING DEADLINE
FOR REPLY AND SETTING HEARING
DATE
Re: Docket No. 23

12
13

The Court has received and considered the parties’ responses to the Order to Show Cause,

14

dated November 24, 2015. The Court shall discharge the Order to Show Cause without imposing

15

sanctions on either party. However, the parties are admonished as follows:

16

1.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s response less than satisfactory, because the proper

17

remedy would have been to ask the Court for an extension if he could not obtain counsel’s

18

consent. Plaintiff, and his counsel, is admonished that if, in the future, he requires an extension of

19

a deadline, he must either obtain a stipulation of counsel, which documents in detail, reasons

20

showing good cause for the extension or file an administrative motion for an extension of time, no

21

later than seven (7) days before the deadline at issue. Failure to comply with this directive shall

22

result in further orders to show cause as to why monetary or other sanctions should not be

23

imposed. Because the Court has not imposed sanctions in this instance, Plaintiff and his counsel

24

are admonished that, in the future, the Court will not excuse failures to comply with deadlines or

25

Court rules.

26

2.

Defendants, and their counsel, are admonished that if they discover that a brief

27

requires correction, after it has been filed, they must identify the fact that it is a corrected filing,

28

must state whether they have notified Plaintiff of the correction, and must submit a redline version

1

wit any filing, so that the Court may determine w
th
d
what has been corrected. Failure to comply with
n

2

this directive sh result in further orde to show cause as to w monetary or other s
s
hall
n
ers
why
sanctions

3

sho
ould not be imposed. Be
ecause the Court has not imposed sa
C
t
anctions in th instance, Defendants
his

4

and their couns are admo
d
sel
onished that, in the future the Court will not exc
e,
cuse failures to comply

5

wit Court rule
th
es.

6

3.

The Court shall treat the motion at D
s
e
Docket No. 2 as the operative moti
23
ion.

7

De
efendants sha file their reply by no later than De
all
r
ecember 18, 2015. The parties shall appear for
,
l

8

a hearing on Fr
h
riday, Januar 22, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. If the Cour finds the m
ry
rt
motion is suit
table for

9

dis
sposition wit
thout oral arg
gument, it sh notify th parties in advance of t hearing d
hall
he
the
date.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Decemb 7, 2015
ber

12
__
___________
__________
____
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2