(PS) Farr v. In-Shape Health Clubs, LLC et al, No. 2:2017cv01871 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/15/17 ORDERING that the order to Show Cause of 10/10/17 9 is WITHDRAWN as satisfied; The FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS issued 10/31/17 10 are VACATED. Plaintiff shall file either an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss within 30 days of the issuance of this Order. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PS) Farr v. In-Shape Health Clubs, LLC et al Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY S. FARR, SR., 12 13 14 15 Case No. 2:17-cv-01871-JAM-GGH Plaintiff, v. ORDER IN-SHAPE HEALTH CLUBS, LLC, CORBIN MARTIN and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, appearing in pro se, seeks additional time to file an Opposition to defendants’ 18 19 Motion to Dismiss this case. Since plaintiff states good cause for his request, it will be 20 GRANTED, but clarification of the status of this case is necessary insofar as plaintiff’s request 21 reflects confusion. The plaintiff filed his action in Solano County Superior Court on July 21, 2017. ECF 22 23 No. 1 at 6. Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of California on September 8, 24 2017, since plaintiff’s claims included Title VII allegations which states a federal question and 25 renders the matter removable. Therefore the matter is now pending in this District where the 26 courthouse is located at 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Thus, plaintiff’s desire to have 27 the matter venued either in Solano County Superior Court or this District Court has been satisfied. 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On September 14, 2017, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and set the 2 matter for hearing on October 19, 2017. ECF No. 6. Under the Local Rules of this District 3 plaintiff’s Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to this Motion was due to be filed 14 days 4 before the hearing or on October 5, 2017. Local Rule 230(c).1 When no timely opposition was 5 received, this court issued an Order to Show Cause why the matter should not be dismissed for 6 failure to oppose defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff’s request for additional time constituted his 7 response to the Order to Show Cause which is now satisfied. 8 9 The undersigned has reviewed the parties’ submittals regarding the failure to timely file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Because of the pro se nature of these proceedings, 10 dismissing the case in light of plaintiff’s requests would be inappropriate. However, Plaintiff 11 must either file an Opposition to defendants’ Motion or file a Statement of Non-Opposition. The 12 result of the latter would be dismissal of the case. Because of the circumstances described in 13 plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause the court will grant him 30 days from the date of 14 this Order to file one or the other of these responses. He is warned that failure to do one or the 15 other will result in dismissal of his Complaint.2 16 In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. This Court’s Order to Show Cause of October 10, 2017 is withdrawn as satisfied; 18 2. The Findings and Recommendations issued October 31, 2017, ECF No. 10 are 19 vacated; 20 //// 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 24 1 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff may obtain a copy of the Local Rules so he may be apprised of his responsibilities in proceeding with this matter from the Office of the Clerk of the Court which is on the 2nd Floor of the Courthouse at 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. 2 The court suggests that plaintiff attempt to arrange for mail delivery to some location more convenient to assure that he receives court notices and defendants’ filings timely and that he apprise the Court of any such address change promptly. 2 1 2 3 4 5 3. Plaintiff shall file either an Opposition or a Statement of Non-Opposition to the pending Motion to Dismiss within 30 days of the issuance of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 15, 2017 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
