Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Alvarez
Plaintiff
Morris Shea Bridge Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND SETTING 

DEADLINE FOR OPPOSITION AND 

REPLY

(Doc. 33)

Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez filed his First Amended Complaint against Defendant MorrisShea Bridge Company, Inc. on August 29, 2024. (Doc. 20.) On September 13, 2024, Defendant 

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition. Accordingly, on 

November 8, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause by written response why the motion 

to dismiss should not be granted and the action dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to file a timely opposition. (Doc. 33.) The Court instructed Plaintiff that he may comply 

with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s 

September 13, 2024 motion to dismiss or, in the alternative a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 

33.) 

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a written response to the Court’s show cause order, 

explaining that he disagrees with dismissal. (Doc. 34.) Having considered Plaintiff’s response, 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 11/18/24 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

the Order to Show Cause is HEREBY DISCHARGED. 

As Plaintiff’s response is directed to the Court and not the pending motion to dismiss, 

Plaintiff will be granted additional time to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss shall be filed no later than December 2, 2024. 

Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be served and filed within ten (10) days after any opposition is 

filed. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to file a timely opposition to the motion will be 

construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion. L.R. 230(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 35 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 2