Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Ambler v. Parks

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 5, 2008

MICHAEL D. AMBLER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JENNEIL PARKS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This matter came before the court on June 27, 2008 for hearing of three motions to dismiss filed by fifteen defendants. The court granted plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file opposition to the motions and continued the hearing of the motions to August 15, 2008. Subsequently, a fourth motion to dismiss was filed and noticed for hearing on the same date. Plaintiff has not filed opposition, a statement of non-opposition, or a request for additional time to respond to any of the defendants' motions, and the time for doing so has now expired.

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." The pro se plaintiff was advised of this provision in open court on June 27, 2008. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the unopposed motions are now deemed submitted upon the record and briefs on file.

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the hearing of defendants' motions set for August 15, 2008, is vacated pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), and the unopposed motions are deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h).

20080805

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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