Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ELGAR v. ALAMEDA HOUSING AUTH.

August 5, 2004.

BETSY P. ELGAR, Plaintiff,
v.
ALAMEDA HOUSING AUTH., et al., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: VAUGHN WALKER, District Judge

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

O Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(x) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

  IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor defendants and against plaintiff. ORDER

  Defendant Harbor Island Apartments (Harbor Island) has moved to dismiss or strike pro se plaintiff Betsy P. Elgar's second amended complaint. Doc # 33. For the following reasons, Harbor Island's motion is GRANTED. The court DISMISSES this action against all defendants and closes the case.

  I

  On November 22, 2002, pro se plaintiff Betsy P. Elgar filed a complaint against defendants "Alameda Housing Authority" and Harbor Island, alleging harassment and discrimination. Doc # 1. Due to an apparent confusion on plaintiff's part regarding the appropriate agency to name in the complaint, summons were issued to both the Alameda County Housing Authority (the County) and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda (the City). The City answered the complaint, while the County moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Docs ## 6, 9. Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion in a timely fashion, so the court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why the court should not treat the motion as unopposed. Doc # 15. Plaintiff responded to the OSC by letter, and the court granted her additional time in which to file an opposition. Docs ## 16, 17. After receipt of plaintiff's opposition (Doc # 20), the court granted the County's motion on the basis that plaintiff's complaint contained no allegations of misconduct on the County's part. Doc # 22.

  Subsequently, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint (FAC) on July 21, 2003. Doc # 23. Little activity took place for several months, with the exception of plaintiff's filing of several letters. See Docs ## 24, 25. On April 7, 2004, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC). Doc # 27. The SAC is identical in every way to the FAC, with the exception of a letter attached to the SAC in which plaintiff apparently seeks to remind the court about the existence of the complaint. Plaintiff also continued to file letters with the court. Docs ## 28, 29, 30, 31.

  The City filed an answer to the SAC on June 2, 2004. Doc # 32. On June 10, 2004, Harbor Island filed a motion to dismiss or to strike the SAC, which was noticed for an August 5, 2004, hearing. Doc # 33.

  Throughout the months of June and July, the court continued to receive letters from plaintiff. Docs ## 35, 36, 37. The court, however, failed to receive a timely opposition or statement of nonopposition from plaintiff. On July 19, 2004, therefore, the court issued an order to show cause (OSC) why Harbor Island's motion to dismiss should not be treated as unopposed. Doc # 38. On August 3, 2004, the court received a letter from plaintiff that appears to be responsive to the July 19 OSC.

  II

  A

  As a threshold matter, plaintiff's August 2 letter is insufficient to discharge the OSC why Harbor Island's motion should not be treated as unopposed. Initially, the court notes that plaintiff did not file the letter as a document in her case file, nor did she attach any proof of service of the letter upon opposing counsel. Plaintiff must officially file documents such as pleadings and responses to court orders, rather than simply mailing them to the court's chambers. Plaintiff must also serve copies of such documents on defendants and should provide proof of such service to the court.

  Even assuming that plaintiff's response to the OSC had been served and filed in an appropriate fashion, the substance of that response is insufficient. The court specifically instructed plaintiff in the July 19 OSC that her response should address the reasons she failed to comply with the local rules. 7/19/04 OSC (Doc # 38) at 2:24-26. The court also instructed plaintiff to address the arguments raised by Harbor Island in its motion, including whether: (1) plaintiff was authorized to file the SAC; (2) the SAC contains proper jurisdictional allegations; and (3) the SAC fails to state a claim or is hopelessly uncertain. Id ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.