Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04248/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04248-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

KAYODE POWELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04248-MEJ 

ORDER RE: REQUEST TO EXTEND 

OPPOSITION FILING DEADLINE; 

ORDER STRIKING OPPOSITION AND 

RESCHEDULING DEADLINES AND 

HEARING DATE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 79, 85, 88

Pending before the Court are Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s and HSBC USA, 

N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo/HSBC”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 79, filed on Oct. 14, 2015) and 

Defendant First American Trustee Servicing Solution (“First American”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 

No. 85, filed on Oct. 23, 2015). On October 27, 2015, pro se Plaintiff Kayode Powell filed a 

Request to extend the filing deadline for his Opposition to Wells Fargo/HSBC’s Motion to 

Dismiss, which was due by October 28, 2015. Dkt. No. 88. In his Request, Plaintiff asserted

Wells Fargo/HSBC did not serve him with their Motion but instead sent it to an incorrect address; 

as such, Plaintiff requested a filing extension so he could file his Opposition by November 9, 2015 

or “a date which the Court sees fit.” Id.; see also First Certificate of Serv., Dkt. No. 81. 

The Request did not come to the Court’s attention until the date of this Order, due in part 

to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 6-3 and 

also as a result of an internal filing error. In the meantime, Wells Fargo/HSBC properly served 

Plaintiff at the correct address on October 28, 2015. Second Certificate of Serv., Dkt. No. 87. The 

Court has just now received Plaintiff’s Opposition, which addresses both Defendants’ Motions to 

Dismiss, as of the afternoon of the date of this Order. Plaintiff signed his Opposition on 

November 13, 2015—days after Plaintiff’s proposed filing date of November 9. 

Plaintiff’s Request and Opposition demonstrate he has not complied with the Civil Local 

Case 3:14-cv-04248-TSH Document 90 Filed 11/16/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Rules in preparing and filing these documents. First, the Court previously warned Plaintiff that to 

request a change in deadlines he must comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3, which requires an 

Administrative Motion to change time and for that Motion to “be accompanied by a proposed 

order and a declaration disclosing, among other things, the reasons for his requested enlargement 

and all previous time modifications in the case, whether by stipulation or Court order.” Dkt. No. 

75 (Order re: Mot. for Extension to File Am. Compl.) (citing Civ. L.R. 6-3(a)). Plaintiff’s Request 

again does not comply with Civil Local Rule 6-3, disregarding this Court’s prior admonition. 

Second, Plaintiff’s recently filed Opposition is 30 pages long, violating Civil Local Rule 7-4(b), 

which states: “[u]nless the Court expressly orders otherwise pursuant to a party’s request made 

prior to the due date, briefs or memoranda filed with opposition papers may not exceed 25 pages 

of text.” Plaintiff must comply with the Civil Local Rules in future filings and interactions with 

the Defendants and the Court. As Plaintiff’s Opposition is not in compliance with these rules, the 

Court hereby STRIKES his Opposition and issues the following ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff must file an amended Opposition which complies with Local Rule 7-4 by 

November 25, 2015. Failure to do so may result in sanctions or the dismissal of his 

case for failure to prosecute.

(2) Defendants’ Replies are due by December 7, 2015 to account for time during the 

Thanksgiving holiday.

(3) The Hearing is rescheduled for December 17, 2015. 

As a final note, the Court has previously admonished Plaintiff about the importance of 

timely filings, and while he is certainly not solely to blame in this instance, he and all parties are 

admonished that the Court will view skeptically any further Motions for Extensions of Time, 

particularly those not filed by stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04248-TSH Document 90 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 2