Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05873/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05873-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSEL I. KASSMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05873-DMR 

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF PERMISSION TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 

DISMISS; SETTING DEADLINE FOR 

DEFENDANT'S REPLY BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 33

Plaintiff Russel Kassman filed this case on December 21, 2015. [Docket No. 1.] On April 

15, 2016, Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. [Docket No. 

23.] In the parties’ joint case management state, filed on April 27, 2016, Plaintiff represented that 

he would file a First Amended Complaint by May 6, 2016. [Docket No. 30.] Plaintiff failed to 

file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss by April 29, 2016 in accordance with Civil 

Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by 

Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). Further, Plaintiff did not file his First Amended Complaint by May 6, 

2016 and did not request an extension from the court. 

On May 11, 2016, the court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause for his failure to

respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. [Docket No. 32.] On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel 

filed a declaration stating that he had improperly calculated the deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition 

because Plaintiff’s counsel had not applied the Northern District of California Civil Local Rules to 

calculate the response deadline. [Docket No. 33.] This does not constitute an acceptable excuse. 

Attorneys practicing in this District are expected to comply with the District’s Local Rules and 

Case 4:15-cv-05873-DMR Document 34 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

may be sanctioned for noncompliance. Civil Local Rule 1-4. The court instructs counsel to

review the Northern District of California Civil Local Rules and Judge Ryu’s Standing Order to 

ensure compliance with the rules going forward. Further rule violations may result in sanctions. 

The court hereby discharges the Order to Show Cause. [Docket No. 32.] Plaintiff may file 

his opposition to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss or a First Amended Complaint by May 18, 

2016. If Plaintiff does not respond to the motion to dismiss or file an amended complaint, 

Defendant’s motion may be granted or the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Defendant’s reply, if any, is due by May 25, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05873-DMR Document 34 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 2