Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05240/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05240-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting 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 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

WALLIS H. CLARK III dba CARMET 

TRADING CO. & CARMET SCIENTIFIC, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

FLA CARD SERVICES, N.A., LINDA BUCK, 

TONY GREEN, I.C. SYSTEM, BETH 

BROWN and DOES 1-10 incl., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-5240 SBA 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

Docket 27 

Plaintiff Wallis H. Clark III dba Carmet Trading Co. & Carmet Scientific has filed a pro 

se “Ex Parte Motion Requesting Continuance of Defendants [sic] Motion to Strike and 

Demurrer.” (Docket 27.) Plaintiff seeks a continuance of the hearing on Defendants’ Motion 

to Dismiss (incorrectly styled as a motion to strike and demurrer), which he apparently believes 

is scheduled for March 16, 2010. In fact, the motion hearing date is March 30, 2010, not 

March 16, 2010. In addition, Plaintiff has not adequately explained why a continuance is 

warranted. Plaintiff claims that he “has not had adequate time to respond” to the motion to 

dismiss. Mot. at 2. Yet, as Defendants correctly note in their response, their motion has been 

on file since November 12, 2009, thus affording Plaintiff more than ample opportunity to 

prepare an opposition.1

The deadline for Plaintiff’s opposition brief has passed and Plaintiff has failed to 

demonstrate good cause for the requested continuance. This Court’s standing orders state that 

the failure to file a response to a motion may be deemed to be a consent to the granting of the 

 1 The case was later reassigned from a Magistrate Judge and Defendants renoticed their 

motion on this Court’s calendar. 

Case 4:09-cv-05240-SBA Document 33 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

unopposed motion. Though Plaintiff is representing himself in this action, he is subject to the 

same procedural rules as a party represented by counsel. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987). As such, it is well within the discretion of the Court to grant Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss as unopposed. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 

(9th Cir. 1995). Nevertheless, mindful of its obligation to first consider to less drastic 

alternatives, the Court will afford Plaintiff one further opportunity to respond to the pending 

motion. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a continuance is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until 

March 30, 2010 to file his response (i.e., either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition) 

to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s response shall comply in all respects with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Civil Local Rules including, without 

limitation, Civil Local Rules 7-3 through 7-5. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to file a 

response by this deadline and/or to comply with this Order or any other applicable 

procedural rules may result in the granting of the pending motion and the dismissal of 

this action without further notice. In the event Plaintiff timely files a response, Defendants 

may file a reply by April 6, 2010. 

2. The hearing on the motion to dismiss and the Case Management Conference are 

CONTINUED from March 30, 2010 to April 20, 2010 at 1:00 p.m. The Court, in its 

discretion, may resolve the motion in advance of the hearing, without oral argument, pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). The parties are advised to check the Court’s website 

to determine whether an appearance is required. 

3. This Order terminates Docket 27. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-05240-SBA Document 33 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CLARK et al, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BANK OF AMERICA et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-05240 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on March 17, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Wallis H. Clark 

3852 Montecito Avenue 

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 

Dated: March 17, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-05240-SBA Document 33 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3