Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06574/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-06574-21/pdf.json

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

---

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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

RAUL BONILLAS, an individual,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC., and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 12-6574 SBA 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR DE 

NOVO DETERMINATION OF 

DISPOSITIVE MATTER 

REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE 

Dkt. 193

On August 19, 2014, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment 

and entered judgment accordingly. Dkt. 145, 146. Defendant then filed a motion for 

attorney’s fees, which the Court referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte (“the 

Magistrate”) for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Dkt. 149, 151. On February 18, 2015, the Magistrate issued her 

report and recommendation, recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s motion. Dkt. 

191. 

On March 4, 2015, Defendant timely filed a Motion for De Novo Determination of 

Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge, which is noticed for hearing on April 14, 

2015. Dkt. 193. Under the Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s motion 

should have been filed by no later than March 18, 2015. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). To date, no 

opposition has been filed by Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff’s lack of response may be 

construed as a consent to the relief sought in Defendant’s motion, the preferable course of 

action in this instance is to consider the motion on the merits. See Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 

594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, 

// 

// 

// 

Case 4:12-cv-06574-SBA Document 198 Filed 04/02/15 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 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff shall file his opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to 

Defendant’s Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to 

Magistrate Judge, by no later than April 9, 2015. 

2. Defendant shall file its reply by April 14, 2015. 

3. The Court will resolve the motion without a hearing, pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b). The motion hearing scheduled for April 14, 2015 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 4/2/15 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:12-cv-06574-SBA Document 198 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 2