Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00719/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00719-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DEBORAH HEATH,

Plaintiff,

v

AT&T CORP,

Defendant. /

No C-05-0719 VRW

 ORDER 

On February 25, 2005, defendant moved to dismiss

plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Doc #7. A

hearing on defendant’s motion was scheduled for May 12, 2005. 

Pursuant to Civ L R 7-3(a), plaintiff’s opposition was due on or

before April 21, 2005. Having received no opposition from

plaintiff, on April 26, 2005, the court vacated the May 12 hearing

and ordered plaintiff, appearing in pro per, to show cause why

defendant’s motion should not be treated as unopposed. Doc # 13

(OSC). Plaintiff filed her response on May 11, 2005. Doc #15. 

On May 12, 2005, the court discharged the OSC and ordered

plaintiff to file her opposition on or before June 2, 2005. Doc

Case 3:05-cv-00719-VRW Document 17 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

#16. On June 2, 2005, the court did not receive plaintiff’s

opposition; it received plaintiff’s request for a 30-day

continuance to file her opposition. Doc #17. Plaintiff’s request

for a continuance (like her request to discharge the OSC) is based

on problems in receiving her mail. Plaintiff placed a “hold,” she

says, on delivery of her mail due to her absence from her home. 

When the hold was lifted, plaintiff asserts that the post office

“failed to notify or deliver to [her] the certified envelope sent

by this court, containing the courts [sic] most recent order dated

May 13, 2005 [sic].” Id at 1-2. Whatever the circumstances, the

court’s patience is wearing thin. Plaintiff has had ample time to

review defendant’s motion and formulate an opposition.

Considering plaintiff’s pro se status and the interests

of justice, the court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff’s request for a 30-

day continuance to file her opposition. Plaintiff’s opposition

must be filed on or before June 17, 2005. Defendant’s reply is due

on or before June 24, 2005, and the matter will be submitted on the

papers. Plaintiff is admonished, however, that the court will not

entertain any further requests to continue adjudication of

defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00719-VRW Document 17 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 2