Javidi v. Superior Court, Family Court Contra Costa County et al

Filing 18

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT SUPERIOR COURTS MOTION TO DISMISS re 10 First MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Superior Court, Family Court Contra Costa County. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg for Saundra B. Armstrong on 1/10/2022. Response due by 1/21/2022. Reply due by 1/28/2022. (bns, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2022)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 MASSOUD JAVIDI,

Plaintiff,

7
8

vs.

9 SUPERIOR COURT, FAMILY COURT
10
11
12

Case No: 21-cv-05393 SBA
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF
TO FILE RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT SUPERIOR
COURT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Massoud Javidi (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings the instant action

13

against Defendants Superior Court, Family Court Contra Costa County (the “Superior

14

Court”) and Shirin Farokhian (“Farokhian”). Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July

15

14, 2021, Dkt. 1, and filed the operative Amended Complaint on November 9, 2021, Dkt. 6.

16

On December 1, 2021, the Superior Court filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

17

Amended Complaint. Dkt. 10. The motion is noticed for hearing on January 12, 2022.

18

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), a response to the motion was due fourteen days after

19

the date it was filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s response to the motion was due by no later

20

than December 15, 2021. Plaintiff did not timely file a response.

21

On December 22, 2021, the Superior Court filed a notice of non-opposition,

22

requesting that the Court grant its motion as unopposed. Dkt. 11. That same day, Plaintiff

23

filed a document titled “Plaintiff Opposes the No Opposition to Dismissal (Opposes

24

Dismissal Request by the Counsel).” Dkt. 12. On December 28, he filed an amended

25

version of the same document. Dkt. 13. The filing does not appear to constitute his

26

opposition to the motion to dismiss, however. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts it was his

27

“understanding” that a response to the motion was “optional” at this stage of the

28

proceedings. Id. at 2. He further states that he “will provide a more detailed response if

1

required by the court,” although he then provides “brief comments,” some of which appear

2

to address the merits of the motion to dismiss. Id. at 3.

3

The Court’s Civil Standing Order warns that the failure to file a timely response to a

4

motion may be construed as consent to the relief sought in the motion. See Dkt. 2, Civil

5

Standing Order ¶ 7. Consequently, it is within the Court’s discretion to grant the Superior

6

Court’s motion to dismiss as unopposed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ghazali v. Moran, 46

7

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming dismissal of pro se action for failure to oppose a

8

motion to dismiss). Mindful of its obligation to consider less drastic alternatives, however,

9

and in view of Plaintiff’s recent filing and stated intent to oppose the motion to dismiss, the

10

Court will afford Plaintiff a further opportunity to respond to the motion.

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

Plaintiff shall file and serve his opposition to the Superior Court’s motion to

14

dismiss by January 21, 2022. Plaintiff is reminded that pro se litigants are required to

15

comply with this Court’s orders, as well as all applicable procedural rules, including the

16

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules, and this Court’s Standing Orders.

17

See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 556, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). IF PLAINTIFF FAILS TO FILE

18

A TIMELY RESPONSE TO THE MOTION OR TO COMPLY WITH ALL

19

APPLICABLE PROCEDURAL RULES, THE MOTION MAY BE GRANTED

20

AND/OR THE ACTION MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

21
22
23

2.

If Plaintiff files a response to the motion within the time prescribed, the

Superior Court shall have until January 28, 2022 to file a reply.
3.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-

24

1(b), the Court will resolve the motion without oral argument. The hearing set for January

25

12, 2022 is VACATED.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RS
______________________________
Richard Seeborg for Saundra B. Armstrong
United States District Judge

Dated: January 10, 2022

28
-2-