Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02155/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02155-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 15:1640 Truth in Lending

---

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

ERIK DAVID SEGELSTROM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITIBANK, NA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02155-JST 

ORDER ACCEPTING PLAINTIFFS' 

LATE-FILED OPPOSITION TO 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: ECF No. 15, 16

Defendant County of Mendocino filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint against it in this 

action on June 5, 2015. ECF No. 10. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition to the 

motion was due by June 19, 2015. Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, submitted an opposition brief out 

of time on July 13, 2015. ECF No. 16. Defendant County of Mendocino has objected to this 

Court’s consideration of the opposition on account of its untimeliness. ECF No. 17. 

Although the opposition was not timely, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs are

proceeding pro se and are not electronic filers. Accordingly, the Court will accept Plaintiff’s 

opposition although it was filed out of time. Should they wish to file a reply to Plaintiffs’

opposition, Defendants shall have until July 31, 2015 to do so. 

Plaintiffs are cautioned that they must comply with all court rules in the future, including 

the Northern District of California’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

available at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02155-JST Document 18 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 1