UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 26, 2011
COUNTY OF SOLANO ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
The Court is in receipt of Defendants' Notice of Errata (ECF No. 12), indicating that their previous Notice of Withdrawal (ECF No. 11) was filed in error. As a matter of background, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's sixth and seventh claims for relief (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff expressed no opposition to Defendants' motion and filed a statement of non-opposition, consistent with Local Rule 230(c) (ECF No. 9). Defendants then filed what they labeled as a Withdrawal of their Motion to Dismiss, requesting that the parties' hearing be taken off calendar (ECF No. 11).
Defendants now contend their Withdrawal was intended to inform the Court that "no appearance at the hearing would be necessary by the parties," and not a withdrawal of their Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12).
Local Rule 230(g) explains that the Court, not the parties, has discretion as to whether a hearing on the merits of a motion is necessary. Any withdrawal filed by a party is interpreted by the Court not as a withdrawal of the need for a hearing, but as a withdrawal of their motion on the merits, consistent with the language of Local Rule 230(c). Therefore, the Notice of Errata is moot. The Motion to Dismiss is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.