Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00884/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00884-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL D. AMBLER,

No. CIV S-08-0884 RRB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v.

JENNEIL PARKS, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

This matter came before the court on June 27, 2008 for hearing of three motions

to dismiss filed by fifteen defendants. The court granted plaintiff’s request for an extension of

time to file opposition to the motions and continued the hearing of the motions to August 15,

2008. Subsequently, a fourth motion to dismiss was filed and noticed for hearing on the same

date. Plaintiff has not filed opposition, a statement of non-opposition, or a request for additional

time to respond to any of the defendants’ motions, and the time for doing so has now expired.

Local Rule 78-230(c) provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in

opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by

that party.” The pro se plaintiff was advised of this provision in open court on June 27, 2008. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h), the unopposed motions are now deemed submitted upon the

record and briefs on file.

Case 2:08-cv-00884-RRB-DAD Document 49 Filed 08/06/08 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

2

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the hearing of defendants’ motions

set for August 15, 2008, is vacated pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), and the unopposed motions

are deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h).

DATED: August 5, 2008.

DAD:kw

DDad1\orders.prose\ambler0884.vac.hrg

Case 2:08-cv-00884-RRB-DAD Document 49 Filed 08/06/08 Page 2 of 2