Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01192-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Home Depot
Defendant
Christopher Smith
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 

CHRISTOPHER SMITH, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HOME DEPOT, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-01192 DAD AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 This case was removed from state court on April 24, 2024. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is 

proceeding in this action in pro se and the case was accordingly referred to the undersigned for 

pre-trial proceedings in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed an Amended 

Complaint on May 21, 2024. ECF No. 6. On June 4, 2024, defendant filed a motion to dismiss 

the Amended Complaint, set to be heard on July 17, 2024. ECF No. 10. Per Local Rule 230(c), 

plaintiff was required to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition within 14 days of the 

motion being filed. In this case, the deadline was June 18, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an 

opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff did file a “Notice of Lodging,” attaching a 

“Notice of Rejection – General” form apparently issued by the Superior Court of California on 

May 8, 2024, indicating that an amended complaint submitted to that court on May 2, 2024 was 

not accepted because the case is now in federal court. ECF No. 12 at 3. This document is nonresponsive to defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

Case 2:24-cv-01192-DAD-AC Document 13 Filed 06/21/24 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 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing date of July 17, 2024, 

is VACATED to be re-set as necessary. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, within 14 days, 

why his failure to respond to the pending motion should not result in a recommendation that this 

case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The filing of an opposition or statement of nonopposition within this timeframe will serve as cause and will discharge this order. If plaintiff fails 

to respond, the court will recommend dismissal of this case pursuant to Local Civil Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDRED. 

DATED: June 20, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-01192-DAD-AC Document 13 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 2