Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04907/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04907-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNIE G WEAVER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04907-MMC 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 

TO ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION UNOPPOSED

The Court is in receipt of “Plaintiff’s Response to Order Vacating Hearing on 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint,” filed September 27, 2016, in which plaintiff 

seeks leave to file, no later than September 30, 2016, an opposition to defendants’ 

motion to dismiss the complaint. 

In support thereof, plaintiff argues the Court erred in issuing its order of September 

26, 2016, by which the Court found plaintiff had failed to file timely opposition to 

defendants’ motion, took the motion under submission, and vacated the hearing thereon. 

In particular, plaintiff contends that, where a motion is filed in a case that subsequently is 

reassigned, the deadline for filing opposition is 14 days from the date on which the 

motion is renoticed for hearing, rather than 14 days from the date on which the motion 

was filed. 

The Court construes plaintiff’s response as a motion for reconsideration based on 

an error of law. The order of reassignment, however, expressly provides that, when a 

case is reassigned, “[b]riefing schedules . . . and other case deadlines remain 

unchanged.” (See Order, filed Sept. 7, 2016). 

Nevertheless, the Court will afford plaintiff the opportunity to file his opposition by 

Case 3:16-cv-04907-MMC Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

September 30, 2016 and sets aside its order vacating the hearing.

In light of the above, defendants’ reply is due no later than October 7, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-04907-MMC Document 21 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 2