Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06255/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-06255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No. 18-CV-06255-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NORMAN CLANCY,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE LABEL PRINTER,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-CV-06255-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 12

On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff Norman Clancy (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a 

complaint against Defendant The Label Printers, LP, erroneously sued as The Label Printer 

(“Defendant”). ECF No. 1. On January 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 8. 

Plaintiff appears to bring two counts, one for retaliation and one for wrongful termination. On 

January 31, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint. ECF No. 12. 

The hearing was set before United States Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen for March 5, 2019. 

See id. On February 13, 2019, Defendant declined magistrate judge jurisdiction, ECF No. 17, and 

the case was reassigned to the undersigned, ECF No. 20.

Under Civil Local Rule 7-2, Plaintiff was required to file and serve his opposition to 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss “not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.” Civ. L.R. 7-

Case 5:18-cv-06255-LHK Document 22 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 18-CV-06255-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

3(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s January 31, 2019 motion to dismiss was 

due February 14, 2019. However, as of today, February 21, 2019, Plaintiff has not yet filed an 

opposition to Defendant’s motion. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff elect to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff 

shall do so within thirty days of this Order. Failure to meet this 30-day deadline will result in a

dismissal of Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. Failure to cure the deficiencies 

identified in Defendant’s motion to dismiss in the second amended complaint may result in 

dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff may not add new causes of action or parties without leave of the 

Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-06255-LHK Document 22 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 2