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.

Hamer v. El Dorado County

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


August 24, 2009

PATRICK MICHAEL HAMER; DONNA LEE HAMER, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
EL DORADO COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule ("Local Rule") 72-302(c)(21). Currently scheduled for hearing on September 2, 2009, are defendants Ted Gaines and Steve Davey's motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. 42); defendants County of El Dorado, Vern Pierson, Dick Jones, Worth Dikeman, Ray Nutting, Helen Bauman, Brenda Bailey, Jeff Neves, Fred Kollar, and Dan Johnson's motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. 44); and defendant Bob Anderson's motion to dismiss and motion to join in the other pending motions to dismiss (Dckt. No. 45).

On August 7, 2009, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants Ted Gaines and Steve Davey's motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. 48); on August 13, 2009, plaintiffs filed an opposition to, and motion to strike, defendants County of El Dorado, Vern Pierson, Dick Jones, Worth Dikeman, Ray Nutting, Helen Bauman, Brenda Bailey, Jeff Neves, Fred Kollar, and Dan Johnson's motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. 49); and on August 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an opposition to, and motion to strike, defendant Bob Anderson's motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. 54). Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(e), "any counter-motion or other motion that a party may desire to make that is related to the general subject matter of the original motion shall be served and filed with the Clerk in the manner and on the date prescribed for the filing of opposition." In the event such a motion is filed, "the Court may continue the hearing on the original and all related motions so as to give all parties reasonable opportunity to serve and file oppositions and replies to all pending motions." Id.

In light of plaintiffs' August 13, 2009 and August 19, 2009, motions to strike, the hearing date of September 2, 2009 on the three pending motions to dismiss and the two pending motions to strike is CONTINUED to September 30, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25. All remaining outstanding oppositions and replies thereto shall be filed in accordance with the briefing schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-230(c) and (d), based on the new hearing date of September 30, 2009.

Further, on August 19, 2009, defendant David Randall filed a document entitled "Answer to Complaint," requesting that he "be dismissed" from this case. Dckt. 55. The court construes defendant Randall's filing as a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and schedules it for hearing, along with the other related motions, on September 30, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25.

Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion and defendant Randall's reply thereto, if any, shall be filed within the time prescribed by Local Rule 78-230(c) and (d), based on the hearing date of September 30, 2009.*fn1

SO ORDERED.


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.