Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05274/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05274-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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 

RICARDA CARIAS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-05274-EDL 

ORDER GRANTING ADDITIONAL 

TIME TO FILE REPLY 

On May 16, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action. Dkt. No. 36. Pursuant 

to Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on May 31, 2016. Plaintiff did not timely file 

any opposition, and on June 7 Defendant filed a reply brief pointing out the lack of opposition and 

reiterating the points made in its original motion. Dkt. No. 37. Later in the day after the reply 

brief was filed, and a week late, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 38. 

The Court has previously cautioned Plaintiff that he must strictly adhere to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure as well as the Local Rules of this Court. See Dkt. No. 35 at 5. Plaintiff’s 

failure to timely oppose the Motion to Dismiss flies in the face of this explicit warning and it 

would be within the Court’s discretion to strike the untimely opposition. Nevertheless, in the 

interest of justice and in light of the public policy favoring the disposition of actions on their 

merits, the Court will consider the opposition. Defendant shall have until June 14 to file a reply 

brief addressing the points raised in Plaintiff’s opposition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 8, 2016 

 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-05274-EDL Document 39 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 1