Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00986/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00986-0/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

DECEMBER 5, 2005,

REQUESTING REPEAT

SUBMISSION OF BRIEFING,

AND TAKING MATTER

UNDER SUBMISSION

On October 7, 2005, defendants Modesto Police Officer Lyndon Yates, et al.

(“Defendants”) noticed for hearing and decision a motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP

12(b)(6). The matter was scheduled for oral argument to be held on December 5, 2005. In

reviewing the briefs submitted by the parties, the court is concerned that there may have been

an incomplete transmission of Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

support of their motion to dismiss. The document that was docketed as the Memorandum of

Points and Authorities in the court’s electronic filing system consists of a single page

designated page 8, which contains a single sentence that states: “Based on the foregoing,

Defendants respectfully request that this court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.” The

page is signed in the proper format and is dated October 7, 2005. The court presumes

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 18 Filed 11/30/05 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

Defendants attempted to electronically transmit an eight-page memorandum of points and

authorities, but unbeknownst to Defendants, the transmission was incomplete. Therefore, the

court directs Defendants to refile an amended motion to dismiss, complete with an amended

memorandum of points and authorities. 

If Plaintiffs did not receive a complete memorandum of points and authorities as the

result of any incomplete transmission of documents to the court’s electronic filing system,

Plaintiffs may, within three (3) days of receipt of this order, file a notice of intent to file an

amended opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs will thereafter be granted

an additional fourteen (14) days within which to file an amended opposition to Defendants’

motion to dismiss.

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

and has determined that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is suitable for decision without oral

argument. 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

December 5, 2005, is VACATED, and no party shall appear at that time. As of the latter of

December 5, 2005, or the date of receipt of Plaintiffs’ amended opposition to Defendants

motion to dismiss, 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: November 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00986-LJO-GSA Document 18 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 2