Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02023/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02023-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

DAVID E FETTERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,

INC, EQUIFAX, INC, and BANK OF

AMERICA, NA,

Defendants. /

No C 06-2023 VRW

ORDER

Defendant Bank of America filed a motion for summary

judgment on April 5, 2007. Doc #45. Per the court’s order of

March 8, 2007 (Doc #41), this motion was to be heard on May 10,

2007. The court later continued the motion hearing to June 21,

2007. Doc #51. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition on or

before June 1, 2007 as required by Civ Local Rule 7-3(a). 

Accordingly, the court vacated the June 21, 2007 hearing

and ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant Bank of America’s

motion should not be treated as unopposed. Doc #58. 

\\

\\

Case 3:06-cv-02023-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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

On June 15, 2007, plaintiff filed a response to the order

to show cause. Doc #59. Plaintiff asserts:

Plaintiff has taken extensive notes and was fully

prepared to present his response to the Court at the

hearing on June 21, in the form of oral argument. He did

not know that his response needed to be submitted in

writing. Since receiving the Court’s Order to Show

Cause, he has tried to organize his notes into a

meaningful written response, but would ask an additional

two weeks to complete the process, as the issues that

require a response are numerous.

Id at 2.

While the court has reservations about allowing plaintiff

to file an opposition after such a long and otherwise unexplained

delay, the court cannot conclude that plaintiff’s failure properly

to file an opposition warrants the harsh sanction of dismissal as

to defendant Bank of America.

Accordingly, if plaintiff desires to prosecute this

action against Bank of America, the court DIRECTS plaintiff to file

an opposition to Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment on

or before July 6, 2007. Bank of America may file a reply on or

before July 20, 2007. The parties shall appear for a hearing on

Bank of America’s motion on August 16, 2007 at 2:00 pm. The

pretrial conference, currently scheduled for July 24, 2007, is

hereby VACATED and continued to October 2, 2007 at 9:00 am.

Plaintiff should be aware that although he is

representing himself in this action, he is nevertheless obligated

to follow the same rules as represented parties. See King v

Atiyeh, 814 F2d 565, 567 (9th Cir 1987). Lack of awareness of the

applicable rules and procedures is no excuse for failure to comply

with those rules. See Swimmer v IRS, 811 F2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir

1987). The Handbook For Litigants Without A Lawyer, published by

Case 3:06-cv-02023-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the court, contains detailed instructions on opposing a motion for

summary judgment. Plaintiff is directed to this resource, which he

should have already obtained from the clerk pursuant to the court’s

standing order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02023-VRW Document 61 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 3