Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06865/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06865-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SALVADOR AGREDANO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCATION, ET 

AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 18-cv-06865-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE LATE OPPOSITION

Re: Dkt. No. 28 

Plaintiff Salvador Agredano, proceeding pro se, brings this action against defendants 

Capital One, National Association (“Capital One”) and Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (“Real 

Time”). On December 5, 2018, Real Time filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 8.) Plaintiff filed no opposition thereto, 

which would have been due on December 19, 2018. On December 6, 2018, Capital One filed a 

motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, also pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff 

filed his opposition thereto one day late, on December 21, 2018, (Dkt. No. 22), and Capital One 

filed its reply in support of its motion on December 27, 2018, (Dkt. No. 24). 

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file “his oppositions to Real Time and Capital One’s Motion to 

Dismiss late.” (Dkt. No. 28 at 2.) Given plaintiff’s pro se status and in the interest of justice,1

 the 

Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff may file an opposition, but only to Real 

Time’s pending motion to dismiss.

2

 The Court hereby accepts his late-filed opposition to Capital 

 1

 For these reasons, Real Time’s pending motion to strike plaintiff’s opposition to Capital 

One’s motion to dismiss as untimely, (Dkt. No. 23), is DENIED. 

2

 Plaintiff’s motion seeks leave to file late oppositions to both pending motions to dismiss. 

However, as mentioned above, and as plaintiff acknowledges in his motion, plaintiff already filed 

an opposition to Capital One’s motion to dismiss. 

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 33 Filed 01/09/19 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 Californi

a

One’s motion. Plaintiff’s opposition to Real Time’s motion must be filed no later than Thursday, 

January 17, 2019 and must comport with this district’s Civil Local Rule 7-3.3 Any reply thereto 

must be filed one week thereafter.4

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 23 and 28.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2019 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 3

 The Civil Local Rules can be accessed at the following link: 

https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil. 

4

 The Court previously vacated the hearing on the pending motions to dismiss. (See Dkt. 

No. 27.) 

Case 4:18-cv-06865-YGR Document 33 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 2