Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01077/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

A copy of the court’s Civil Local Rules are available from the clerk of the court, or from 1

the “Rules” section of the court’s website (www.cand.uscourts.gov).

Magistrate Judges have authority to hear dispositive motions, such as the motions to 2

dismiss and strike, only in cases where all parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WENDELL J JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PNC BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 10-1077 PVT

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING; AND

SETTING NEW DEADLINES 

On March 19, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Strike. Pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 73-1(a)(2), no later than five court days after those motions were filed each party

1

was required to file either a written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, or request

reassignment to a District Judge. Neither party has done so. Therefore, based on the file herein, 2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to file either a “Consent to

Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge,” or else a “Declination to Proceed Before a United

States Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment,” is extended to June 1, 2010. Both forms are

Case 5:10-cv-01077-LHK Document 13 Filed 05/19/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff has not yet filed any written opposition to the motion. See CIV.L.R. 7-3(a) (“Any 3

opposition to a motion must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date.”). Plaintiff

is representing himself pro se, and generally courts treat pro se litigants with “great leniency” when

evaluating compliance with the technical rules of civil procedure. See, Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915,

924 (9 Cir. 1986). However, from the court’s records it appears Plaintiff is an attorney, and pro se

th

attorneys “typically ‘cannot claim the special consideration which the courts customarily grant to pro

se parties.’” see Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 82 n.4 (2 Cir.2001), quoting Harbulak v. nd

County of Suffolk, 654 F.2d 194, 198 (2 Cir. 1981). Nonetheless, in light of the policy of resolving nd

cases on the merits rather than on technicality, the court will grant Plaintiff one more opportunity to

oppose Defendant’s motions. 

ORDER, page 2

available from the clerk of the court, or from the “Forms” section of the court’s website

(www.cand.uscourts.gov).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion

to Strike is CONTINUED to June 15, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5 of this court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a written opposition to the

motion to dismiss his complaint is extended to June 1, 2010.3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant may file reply papers no later than June 8, 2010.

Dated: 5/19/10

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-01077-LHK Document 13 Filed 05/19/10 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER, page 3

Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court’s Electronic Case Filing system.

copies mailed on 5/19/10 to:

Wendell J Jones

2409 Quantico Court

San Jose, CA 95128 

 /s/ Donna Kirchner For 

 MARTHA BROWN

 Courtroom Deputy 

Case 5:10-cv-01077-LHK Document 13 Filed 05/19/10 Page 3 of 3