Matthews v. San Diego County Board of Supervisors et al
Filing
22
ORDER re Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 21 ). The Court denies all aspects of Plaintiff's motion except that which seeks a 30-day extension of time to file. Such motion is granted: Plaintiff must file a response brief, if any, no later than 11/19/2018. Any reply must be filed no later than 11/28/2018. The new hearing date is 12/14/2018 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D before Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/19/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jdt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
THOMAS MATTHEWS,
Case No.: 3:18-CV-711-GPC-NLS
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
13
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, et al., CODE
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS TERESA
WILLIS & MICHAEL MURPHY; SAN
DIEGO COUNTY TREASURE'S
OFFICE, (all defendants sued in their
individual and official capacity),
14
15
16
17
[ECF No. 21.]
Defendants.
18
19
Before this Court is pro se Plaintiff Thomas Matthews’ motion “to set aside default
20
21
judgment due to defendants failure to properly notice plaintiff of their filings/motions.”
22
(ECF No. 21.) For reasons articulated below, the Court will construe the motion as a
23
motion for extension of time to file a response and grant the motion in part and deny it in
24
part.
25
On August 31, 2018, the Court issued a scheduling order setting the hearing on
26
Defendant County of San Diego’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) for November 9,
27
2018, and ordered that any response from Plaintiff Thomas Matthews was due no later
28
than September 21, 2018. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff did not file any response motions
1
3:18-CV-711-GPC-NLS
1
before September 21, 2018, and on October 5, 2018, Defendant filed a response urging
2
the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 19.)
3
Plaintiff’s present motion is submitted in opposition to Defendant’s request for dismissal.
4
First, Plaintiff asks the Court to set aside “defendant’s motion for default.”
5
Because Defendant has not moved for default, and because no default has been entered,
6
the request is denied.
7
Second, Plaintiff states that his failure to file a timely response was attributable “to
8
the defendants failure to properly notice him of the motions.” (ECF No. 21, at 2.)
9
Specifically, he points to the proof of service page submitted by Defendant, which were
10
addressed to the Plaintiff at a zip code of 92120. Although Plaintiff contends that is not
11
his correct address, his own complaint is the source of that erroneous zip code. (ECF No.
12
1, at 1). Plaintiff has indicated, by way of a handwritten note on his motion, that his
13
correct zip code is 92019. (ECF No. 21, at 1.) The Clerk has updated Plaintiff’s address
14
for the docket. With the correct zip code on file, there is no need for the Court to order
15
Defendant to alter its method of service.
16
Finally, Plaintiff has asked for a 30 day extension in which to respond to
17
Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Court will grant that request in recognition of
18
Plaintiff’s pro se status and excuse the tardy filing. Mindful, however, that an extension
19
of 30 days would require a shifting of reply brief and motion hearing dates as well, the
20
Court resets the calendar as follows. Plaintiff’s new response brief deadline is
21
November 19, 2018. Any reply from Defendant is due November 28, 2018. The new
22
hearing date shall be December 14, 2018, at 1:30 p.m., in room 2D.
23
24
CONCLUSION
The Court denies all aspects of Plaintiff’s motion except that which seeks a 30 day
25
extension of time to file. Such motion is granted: Plaintiff must file a response brief, if
26
any, no later than November 19, 2018. Any reply must be filed no later than November
27
28, 2018. The new hearing date is December 14, 2018, at 1:30 p.m.
28
2
3:18-CV-711-GPC-NLS
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2018
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
3
3:18-CV-711-GPC-NLS
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?