Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00871/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00871-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN SHEK,

Plaintiff, No. C 07-0871 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO

STANFORD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL MOTION TO DISMISS

CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On June 20, 2007, and again on June 22, 2007, plaintiff filed requests to continue

the case management conference and what appeared to be requests for additional time to

respond to defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. On June 25, 2007, the court issued an

order vacating the case management conference. The court also denied the request for

additional time to oppose defendants’ motion, on the basis that the motion as noticed

allowed plaintiff until July 5, 2007, to file his opposition – more than four weeks after the

motion was filed. The court found that four weeks was sufficient time, and that plaintiff had

not established any good cause for his request for additional time.

On June 29, 2007, plaintiff filed another request for additional time to oppose the

motion. In this request, he states that he requires time to obtain documents from a file in a

San Francisco Superior Court case in which a Superior Court judge, the Hon. David A.

Garcia, issued an order declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Defendants included a copy

of the order as an exhibit to the Declaration of Stephanie B. Bradshaw in support of the

motion to dismiss. Defendants cited to the order as support for their argument that plaintiff,

Case 4:07-cv-00871-PJH Document 29 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

while proceeding pro se, is nevertheless an experienced “litigator.” Plaintiff claims that the

signature on the order is not Judge Garcia’s.

The basis for defendants’ motion to dismiss is their assertion that plaintiff failed to

obtain a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission prior to

filing the present action (and also failed to file an administrative charge with the EEOC). 

For this reason, defendants argue that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction over

plaintiff’s Title VII complaint. 

In order to oppose the motion, plaintiff need only provide proof that he received a

right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. The question whether the San Francisco Superior Court

did or did not declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant is not relevant to the question whether

plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the present action. Accordingly,

the court finds that plaintiff has not provided any good cause for his request. The due-date

for the opposition remains July 5, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00871-PJH Document 29 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 2