Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01029/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01029-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathan P. Baker
Defendant
Capital One Auto Finance
Defendant
Courtney Smith Jr.
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COURTNEY SMITH JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

NATHAN P. BAKER and CAPITAL ONE 

AUTO FINANCE, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-01029 DJC AC PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this case in pro per. The proceeding has accordingly been 

referred to the magistrate judge by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Defendants each filed 

a motion to dismiss this case. ECF Nos. 4 and 6. Plaintiff did not timely oppose the motions, and 

the court issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff subsequently submitted a motion for an extension of time to file 

oppositions to the motions to dismiss. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff’s only rationale for the extension is 

the fact of their pro se status, and the motion did not state how much additional time is needed. 

Id. Plaintiff is informed for future reference that a motion for extension of time should generally 

provide an explanation why the original deadline cannot be met by diligent effort, and should 

specify the length of extension requested. 

Considering plaintiff’s pro se status and in the interest of adjudicating this case on the 

Case 2:24-cv-01029-DJC-AC Document 10 Filed 06/12/24 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 

merits, the motion will be granted and plaintiff will be given 30 days to oppose the motions to 

dismiss. 

 For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s oppositions or statements of non-opposition to the pending motions to 

dismiss (ECF Nos. 4 and 6) are due no later than July 12, 2024. 

3. If plaintiff fails to timely comply with this order, the undersigned may recommend 

that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

DATED: June 11, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01029-DJC-AC Document 10 Filed 06/12/24 Page 2 of 2