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.

Marina Weahunt v. California Reconveyance Company

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


March 22, 2012

MARINA WEAHUNT PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). On February 23, 2012, defendant California Reconveyance Company filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) noticed for hearing on April 19, 2012. (Dkt. No. 27.) Subsequently, on March 20, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 30.) Plaintiff indicates that she has been unable to timely respond to defendant's motion, because she has been ill, was hospitalized, and that she does not have the money to pay for the medication she was prescribed upon discharge from the hospital. Along with her request, she filed at least a partial brief in opposition to defendant's motion.

The court observes that, despite plaintiff's belief that she has not timely responded to defendant's motion, any opposition to that motion is only due 14 days prior to the hearing date, i.e. on April 5, 2012. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Accordingly, plaintiff's opposition is not yet due. Nevertheless, given plaintiff's recent health complications, her pro se status, and the fact that plaintiff may need additional time to complete her opposition, the court will grant plaintiff an additional two weeks to file an opposition and reschedule the hearing date on defendant's motion.

In light of the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 30) is granted.

2. The April 19, 2012 hearing on defendant's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 27) is vacated and reset for May 3, 2012.

3. Plaintiff shall file any opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 27) by April 19, 2012.

4. Defendant shall file any reply brief by April 26, 2012.

20120322

© 1992-2012 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.