Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723-5/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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

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.) The motion was referred to the undersigned for the preparation of 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. 26.) On October 7, 2024, the Court vacated the motion 

hearing, instructed the parties that Local Rule 230 would govern the filing of oppositions and 

replies, and informed the parties that the motion would be decided on the papers. (Doc. 27.)

On October 11, 2024, the Court instructed Defendant to file proof of service of the motion 

to dismiss on Plaintiff. (Doc. 31.) On October 14, 2024, Defendant filed a certificate/proof of 

service that indicated Plaintiff had been served with the motion to dismiss by U.S. Mail on 

October 14, 2024. (Doc. 32.) 

///

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 33 Filed 11/08/24 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

Local Rule 230(c) requires that opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion be filed 

and served no later than fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed. L.R. 230(c). Local Rule 

230(c) provides that the “failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as 

a non-opposition to the motion.” L.R. 230(c). Although the motion was filed on September 13, 

2024, Plaintiff was not served with the motion until October 14, 2024. (Doc. 32.) In 

consideration of the date of service, Plaintiff’s opposition or non-opposition to the motion to 

dismiss was due no later than October 31, 2024. No opposition has been filed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 

RESPONSE within fourteen (14) days of service of this order 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. Plaintiff 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. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1). Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in 

dismissal of this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 33 Filed 11/08/24 Page 2 of 2