Williams v. Perez et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore terminating 16 , 27 Motions to Dismiss due to the filing of the 37 second amended complaint; ORDER discharging the 31 5/22/17 order to show cause. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRANDON T. WILLIAMS, Case No. 4:16-cv-04143-KAW Plaintiff, 8 ORDER TERMINATING MOTIONS TO DISMISS; ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 9 10 HECTOR PEREZ, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 16, 27, 31 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On April 1, 2017, Defendant Richmond Housing Authority (“Richmond”) filed a motion to 14 dismiss Plaintiff Brandon Williams’s first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 16.) On April 17, 2017, 15 Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 21.) On April 19, 16 2017, Richmond filed a notice of non-opposition, and provided that it would withdraw its motion 17 to dismiss once the second amended complaint was filed. (Dkt. No. 22.) 18 On April 20, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended 19 complaint, and ordered that she file the amended complaint by May 5, 2017, and informed 20 Plaintiff that, upon timely filing, the Court would terminate the pending motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 21 No. 23.) Plaintiff did not timely file her second amended complaint. 22 23 24 On May 12, 2017, the federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 27.) The hearing is noticed for July 6, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the Court issued an order continuing the hearing on the Richmond’s 25 motion to dismiss to July 6, 2017, and ordered Plaintiff to show cause why she did not timely file 26 her second amended complaint, and why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 27 (Dkt. No. 31.) Plaintiff was informed that if she responded to the order to show cause and filed 28 her second amended complaint by June 9, 2017, the Court would terminate both pending motions 1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). See id. On June 9, 2017, Plaintiffs filed 2 an amended complaint and a response to the order to show cause. (Dkt. Nos. 35 & 37.) 3 Accordingly, the Court terminates the pending motions to dismiss, as the operative 4 complaint is now the second amended complaint, and discharges the order to show cause. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 16, 2017 ______________________________________ KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?