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.

Diana Rodriguez, et al v. California Attorney General's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 29, 2010

DIANA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,
v.
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Jay C. Gandhi, United States Magistrate Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Date December 29, 2010

Beatriz Martinez None Appearing Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Appearing None Appearing Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

On November 17, 2010, Defendants filed and served a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). [Dkt. No. 27.] By its Order dated November 19, 2010 [Docket No. 28], the Court gave Plaintiffs until December 17, 2010 to file an Opposition.

To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an Opposition. The failure to file an Opposition within the deadline set by the Court may be deemed Plaintiffs' consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss. L.R. 7-12.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT on or before January 12, 2011, Plaintiffs shall file a Response to this Order showing good cause, if any exists, why they failed to timely file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and why Defendants should not be dismissed based on Plaintiffs' failure to file an Opposition. See L.R. 7-12; Ghazali v., 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of pro se prisoner's action for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court's order).

Plaintiffs shall support any attempt to show good cause with a declaration under penalty of perjury, accompanied by an Opposition that (a) states whether Plaintiffs admit or deny each allegation of fact contained in the Motion to Dismiss; and (b) is limited to facts or contentions responsive to matters raised in the Motion to Dismiss.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 09-1149 JST (JCG)

Date December 29, 2010

Diana Rodriguez, et al., v. California Attorney General's Office, et al.

The Court admonishes Plaintiffs that their failure to timely file a declaration responsive to this Order to Show Cause will be deemed by the Court as further evidence of their failure to comply with the Court's orders and rules, and their consent to the granting of Defendants' Motion, and will result in a recommendation to the District Judge that Defendants be dismissed on that basis.

cc: Parties of Record Initials of Preparer bm

20101229

© 1992-2011 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.