Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00986-2/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

SUSAN GALVAN; RAMON GALVAN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

MODESTO POLICE OFFICER )

LYNDON YATES; OFFICER MIRL )

MORSE; CITY OF MODESTO POLICE )

DEPARTMENT; CITY OF MODESTO; )

and DOES 1 through 50, )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0986 AWI LJO

ORDER VACATING

HEARING DATE OF MAY 15,

2006, AND REQUESTING

CLARIFICATION OF NOTICE

OF NON-OPPOSITION

Defendants Modesto Police Officer, Lyndon Yates, et al. (“Defendants”) have noticed

for hearing and decision a motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) and a motion to

strike pursuant to FRCP 12(f). The matters were scheduled for oral argument to be held on

May 15, 2006. On May 1, 2006, plaintiffs Susan and Ramon Galvan (“Plaintiffs”) filed a

notice of non-opposition, which states in total, “Plaintiffs here give notice of non-opposition

to Defendants’ motion set for hearing May 15, 2006 in the captioned matter”. The court

finds Plaintiffs’ statement of non-opposition ambiguous in that it refers to a single motion

whereas two motions are set for hearing on May 15, 2006. The court requests that Plaintiffs

clarify the motion or motions to which they have no opposition by filing an amended notice

of non-opposition. If Plaintiffs agree that certain of Plaintiffs’ claims for relief should be

dismissed, the court requests the parties file a stipulation of dismissal of such claims as the

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 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

parties agree should be dismissed.

The court has reviewed the documents that have been filed with the court to this point

and has determined that Defendants’ motions are suitable for decision without oral argument

subject to review of Plaintiffs’ amended notice of non-opposition or stipulation of the parties. 

Should the court later determine upon review of all submitted documents that oral argument

is appropriate, the parties will be notified and the matter will be scheduled for oral argument. 

Local Rule 78-230(h).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the previously set hearing date of May 15,

2006, is VACATED, and no party shall appear at that time. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to

file an amended notice of non-opposition not later than five (5) days from the date of service

of this order. In the alternative, the parties may file a stipulation of dismissal of claims not

later that five (5) days from the date of service of this order. As of May 15, 2006, the court

will take the matter under submission and will thereafter render a decision or request further

briefing or schedule oral argument as appropriate in accordance with Local Rule 78-230(h).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 31 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 2