Bates v. City of San Jose et al

Filing 69

Response to plaintiff's leter. Signed by Judge Whyte on 8/12/2013. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

FEDERICK BATES,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. C-06-05302-RMW
Response to Letter

v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE et al.,
[Re Docket No. 68]
Defendants.

17
18
19

Federick Bates has filed a request with the court for (1) a copy of any order signed by the

20

undersigned setting a hearing on his motion for relief from judgment and proof of its service; (2) a

21

copy of the order denying the motion for relief and proof of its service; and (3) advice as to whether

22

there is a transcript of the hearing.

23

On March 5, 2013, defendants filed a stipulation, signed by plaintiff and defendants,

24

modifying the briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion and setting the hearing on the motion for April

25

26, 2013, at 9 a.m. See Dkt. No. 47. The court approved the stipulation on March 18, 2013. See

26

Dkt. No. 50. It is unclear whether the plaintiff received a copy of that order.

27
28

There was no substantive hearing on April 26, the stipulated hearing date, as plaintiff did not
appear. Plaintiff apparently expected the court would send out an order setting the date pursuant to
RESPONSE TO LETTER
Case No. C-06-05302-RMW
SW

-1-

1

the stipulation. Because he did not receive one, he did not appear. Although the court granted the

2

parties' stipulation requesting April 26 as the hearing date, a hearing was not necessary or required,

3

and the court submitted the matter on the papers.

4
5
6
7

Dated: August 12, 2013

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESPONSE TO LETTER
Case No. C-06-05302-RMW
SW

-2-