Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00348/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00348-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY KENNETH KAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

VERDERA COMMUNITY 

ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:22-cv-00348-KJM-JDP (PS)

ORDER 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND 

CONTINUING THE HEARING ON 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

ECF No. 94

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment roughly a month after plaintiff’s counsel 

was relieved by the court. See ECF Nos. 83 & 88. In light of plaintiff’s new status as a pro se 

litigant, defendants’ motion was re-noticed before me. ECF Nos. 90 & 93. The motion is set for 

hearing on February 15, 2024, and I directed plaintiff to file either an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition by January 25, 2024. ECF No. 93. 

Plaintiff, instead, filed a motion seeking time to find new counsel and requesting that his 

son be authorized to submit filings on his behalf. ECF No. 94. Plaintiff states that he makes 

these requests because he has been hospitalized with an acute medical condition. Id. at 1; 5 (a 

letter from M. Roxana Vanderlei, a medical social worker at Kaiser Permanente, detailing 

plaintiff’s medical condition). Accompanying plaintiff’s motion is a letter signed by his son, 

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 96 Filed 02/08/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Austin Kan. Id. at 2-4. It the letter appears to address the merits of defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. See id. However, because Mr. Kan is neither a party nor an attorney, I 

cannot consider his letter to be an opposition to defendants’ motion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 

motion is denied.

On the court’s own motion, the hearing set for February 15, 2024, is rescheduled to April 

18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., via Zoom. Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

defendants’ motion is due by no later than March 28, 2024. Defendants may file a reply, if any, 

on or before April 11, 2024. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and to authorize his son to file on his behalf, 

ECF No. 94, is denied. 

2. On the court’s own motion, the February 15, 2024 hearing on defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment is continued to April 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom.

3. By no later than March 28, 2024, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, no later than April 11, 

2024. 

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with 

local rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00348-DC-JDP Document 96 Filed 02/08/24 Page 2 of 2