Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03267/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03267-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMAN D. PATEL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF SANTA ROSA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-3267 MMC

ORDER TAKING MOTION TO DISMISS

UNDER SUBMISSION; CONTINUING

HEARING ON MOTION TO STAY;

ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO

FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH

REQUIREMENTS OF GENERAL

ORDER 45

On June 5, 2006, defendant City of Santa Rosa (“City”) electronically filed a motion

to dismiss one cause of action, as well as a separate motion to stay the entire action

pending completion of proceedings in state court, and noticed both motions for hearing July

14, 2006. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition to the motions was required

to be filed no later than June 23, 2006. Additionally, pursuant to General Order 45, any

opposition was required to be electronically filed. 

No opposition to either motion was filed by June 23, 2006. On June 26, 2006,

plaintiffs manually filed an untimely opposition to the motion to stay. To date, no opposition

to the motion to dismiss, nor a statement of nonopposition, has been filed.

On June 30, 2006, the City electronically filed an objection to plaintiffs’ opposition to

the motion to stay. The City objects that the opposition was required to be electronically

filed, that the City did not learn the opposition had been filed until June 30, 2006, and that

Case 3:06-cv-03267-MMC Document 15 Filed 07/05/06 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

because defense counsel had previously arranged to take a brief vacation from June 30,

2006 through July 4, 2006, there was inadequate time to prepare a proper reply. The City’s

objections are well-taken. Rather than strike the opposition, however, the Court will

continue the hearing on the motion to stay to afford the City additional time to file its reply.

Accordingly,

1. As no opposition has been filed to the City’s motion to dismiss, the motion to

dismiss is hereby taken under submission.

2. The July 14, 2006 hearing on the motion to stay is hereby CONTINUED to

August 18, 2006. The deadline for the City to file its reply is hereby CONTINUED to

July 14, 2006.

3. Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to familiarize themselves with the requirements of

General Order 45 forthwith, and to file all future documents in compliance therewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03267-MMC Document 15 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 2