Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00805/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00805-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnson & Johnson-Janssen
Defendant
Harriet Stricklen
Plaintiff

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

HARRIET STRICKLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON-JANSSEN,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-805-TLN-KJN PS 

ORDER

Presently pending before the court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, which was 

noticed for hearing on July 28, 2016. (ECF No. 6.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff was 

required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion no later than fourteen 

(14) days prior to the hearing, i.e., by July 14, 2016. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Although that 

deadline has passed, the court’s records reveal that no opposition or statement of non-opposition 

to the motion was filed.

The court has considered whether the case should be dismissed or other sanctions imposed 

based on plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion and comply with the Local Rules. Nevertheless, 

in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and the court’s desire to resolve the action on the merits, the 

court finds it appropriate to continue the hearing and grant plaintiff another opportunity to oppose 

the motion.

Case 2:16-cv-00805-TLN-GGH Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. July 28, 2016 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is VACATED and 

CONTINUED to August 11, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the 

undersigned.

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion no later 

than July 28, 2016.

3. Any reply brief by defendant shall be due no later than August 4, 2016.

4. Failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to 

dismiss may result in the imposition of sanctions, including potential dismissal of the 

action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 19, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00805-TLN-GGH Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 2