Jones v. PNC Bank, N.A.

Filing 13

ORDER Continuing Hearing; and Setting New Deadlines. Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 5/19/10. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 5/19/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A copy of the court's Civil Local Rules are available from the clerk of the court, or from the "Rules" section of the court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov). Magistrate Judges have authority to hear dispositive motions, such as the motions to dismiss and strike, only in cases where all parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). OR D E R, page 1
2 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

WENDELL J JONES,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PNC BANK, N.A., ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 10-1077 PVT ORDER CONTINUING HEARING; AND SETTIN G NEW DEADLINES

On March 19, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 73-1(a)(2),1 no later than five court days after those motions were filed each party was required to file either a written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, or request reassignment to a District Judge.2 Neither party has done so. Therefore, based on the file herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to file either a "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge," or else a "Declination to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment," is extended to June 1, 2010. Both forms are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

available from the clerk of the court, or from the "Forms" section of the court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike is CONTINUED to June 15, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5 of this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a written opposition to the motion to dismiss his complaint is extended to June 1, 2010.3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file reply papers no later than June 8, 2010. Dated: 5/19/10 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff has not yet filed any written opposition to the motion. See CIV.L.R. 7-3(a) ("Any opposition to a motion must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date."). Plaintiff is representing himself pro se, and generally courts treat pro se litigants with "great leniency" when evaluating compliance with the technical rules of civil procedure. See, Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). However, from the court's records it appears Plaintiff is an attorney, and pro se attorneys "typically `cannot claim the special consideration which the courts customarily grant to pro se parties.'" see Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 82 n.4 (2nd Cir.2001), quoting Harbulak v. County of Suffolk, 654 F.2d 194, 198 (2nd Cir. 1981). Nonetheless, in light of the policy of resolving cases on the merits rather than on technicality, the court will grant Plaintiff one more opportunity to oppose Defendant's motions. ORDER, page 2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OR D E R, page 3 /s/ Donna Kirchner MARTHA BROWN Courtroom Deputy For copies mailed on 5/19/10 Wendell J Jones 2409 Quantico Court San Jose, CA 95128 to: Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court's Electronic Case Filing system.