Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVETTE SANDERS, individually and ) 

)

as guardian ad litem for the estate of ) 

Michael Sanders, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THE CITY OF FRESNO a municipality; )

)

THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, a )

municipality; TASER )

INTERNATIONAL, Inc. a corporation )

doing business in California; JERRY )

DYER, an individual; and DOES 1 )

through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 05-0469 AWI SMS

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE AN OUT

OF TIME OPPOSITION TO

CITY OF FRESNO’S MOTION

TO DISMISS

Defendant City of Fresno filed a motion to dismiss which was taken under submission as

of March 13, 2006. The order taking the motion under submission was based in part on

Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely opposition. Plaintiff has filed a late opposition and motion to

allow the out of time opposition. According to the affidavit of Plaintiff’s counsel, the failure to

file a timely opposition was due to an error in his calendaring system. Plaintiff’s counsel further

points out that it filed a timely opposition to Defendant Taser’s motion to dismiss as further

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 04/03/06 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

evidence that the failure to file an opposition to the City’s motion was simply administrative

oversight. 

In the interests of justice, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for a late or out of time

filing. The Court will thus consider Plaintiff’s opposition to the City of Fresno’s motion to

dismiss. The City of Fresno will have an opportunity to respond to the opposition. The motion

indicates that it is set for hearing before this Court on April 10, 2006, although a review of the

Court’s calendar for that day does not show the motion as pending. Given this order, however,

no hearing is necessary on Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to file an out of time opposition is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s opposition to the City of Fresno’s motion to dismiss, which is part of

document number 53 in the Court’s docket, will be considered by the Court in

ruling on the City of Fresno’s motion to dismiss;

3. The City of Fresno may file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition by April 10, 2006;

and

4. The April 10, 2006, hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion to file an out of time

opposition is VACATED as moot.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2