Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00117-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEDY HOLMES STAFFING SERVICES, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Currently before 

the court is plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing set for defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF 

No. 47. 

On March 27, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FAC, with a hearing 

scheduled for May 20, 2015. ECF No. 43. On May 14, 2015, the court continued the hearing via 

minute order to June 10, 2015, because plaintiff had failed to file a timely opposition or notice of 

non-opposition in violation of Local Rule 230(c). ECF No. 45. The court also warned plaintiff 

that a second failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c) would result in the issuance of an order to 

show cause for failure to prosecute. Id. The court continued its hearing again to June 17, 2015, 

four days later. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff again failed to file a timely opposition, and on June 11, 

2015, the court issued an order to show cause for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 48. 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 49 Filed 06/18/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Unbeknownst to the court however, plaintiff had filed a motion for a thirty (30) day 

continuance of the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss on June 10, 2015. ECF No. 47. 

Plaintiff’s motion explains that he never received notice of defendants’ motion to dismiss because 

he was away from home taking care of a friend who was diagnosed with cancer. Id. Apparently, 

plaintiff left to take care of his friend on the morning that defendants’ motion to dismiss was 

delivered to his home. Id. Although he asked one of his roommates to keep an eye on his mail 

for him while he was gone, another roommate happened to picked up the mail that day. Id. That 

roommate put defendants’ motion in a pile, where it stayed until plaintiff returned home on June 

5, 2015. Id. 

The court will grant plaintiff’s motion in light of his pro se status. However, the court 

also warns plaintiff that he has a duty to diligently keep track of this matter and adhere to 

deadlines. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)). That duty requires that he keep track of his mail. In addition, the court 

will be reluctant to grant any further requests to continue the hearing on defendants’ motion to 

dismiss. This matter has been ongoing since January 22, 2013; plaintiff has obtained a release 

from judgment that was secured because he had failed to comply with a court order, as well as 

multiple extensions of time. While the court understands that plaintiff’s pro se status and living 

situation may make adhering to deadlines difficult, he can only ignore court orders and fail to 

adhere to deadlines so many times before his requests for extensions look like they are being 

taken in bad faith. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(“‘[D]isobedient conduct not shown to be outside the control of the litigant; is all that is required 

to demonstrate willfulness, bad faith, or fault.”) 

In accordance with the foregoing and for good cause shown, THE COURT HEREBY 

ORDERS that: 

1. Its June 6, 2015, order to show cause, ECF No. 48, is DISCHARGED; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 47, is GRANTED. 

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 43, is hereby scheduled for hearing in front 

of the undersigned on July 15, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 26. Plaintiff 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 49 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

must file an opposition or notice of non-opposition by July 1, 2015, in accordance 

with Local Rule 230. If plaintiff once again neglects to do so the court will issue 

findings and recommendations recommending that his case be dismissed. 

DATED: June 18, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-00117-MCE-AC Document 49 Filed 06/18/15 Page 3 of 3