Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03744-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 1

By separate order filed concurrently herewith, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to

vacate the December 15, 2006 hearing and take the motion to dismiss under submission.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL WILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C 06-3744 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion to Extend Time on Filing Response to Motion to

Dismiss,” filed December 6, 2006, by which plaintiff seeks an extension of the deadline to

file his opposition to defendant City of San Leandro’s motion to dismiss.

Because the motion to dismiss was noticed for hearing on December 15, 2006,1

plaintiff’s opposition was due no later than November 24, 2006. See Civil L. R. 7-3(a)

(providing opposition to motion must be filed no later than 21 days before hearing date). 

Plaintiff’s opposition was filed November 29, 2006, which untimely filing was, according to

plaintiff, the result of a courier service’s “reneiging [sic]” on a promise to file the document. 

(See Pl.’s Mot. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff represents that defendant has no opposition to the instant

motion for an extension of time.

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 44 Filed 12/07/06 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

Defendant has filed a substantive reply to plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion

to dismiss.

2

In light of defendant’s non-opposition,2 the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s motion

and will consider plaintiff’s opposition in ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03744-MMC Document 44 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 2