Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03430/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03430-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Katherine Lester
Defendant
Alexander Rodarte
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

ALEXANDER RODARTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHERINE LESTER,

Defendant.

No. 2:24-cv-3430-DC-CKD (PS)

ORDER 

Plaintiff, Alexander Rodarte, filed a complaint for damages in the Sacramento County 

Superior Court and defendant, Katherine Lester, removed the case to this court on December 10, 

2024. (ECF No. 1.) On December 11, 2024, defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff did not file a timely

opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Local Rule 230(c).

Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion 

to dismiss violates Local Rule 230(c). However, the court will provide plaintiff with a further 

opportunity to respond to the pending motion within 14 days after service of this order. Plaintiff is

cautioned that any further failure to respond will be construed as a non-opposition to the motion

which would also constitute grounds for dismissal of this case.

Local Rule 230(c) states “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion 

at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party....”

Case 2:24-cv-03430-DJC-CKD Document 7 Filed 01/13/25 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, the hearing set for February 19, 2025, on defendant’s motion to dismiss is vacated. 

After the conclusion of briefing, the motion will be submitted for decision on the record and 

written briefing. If the court subsequently determines that oral argument would be beneficial for 

consideration of the motion, the parties will be notified accordingly.

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss set to take place on February 19, 

2025, is VACATED.

2. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition (or a statement of non-opposition) to the

motion to dismiss within 14 days after service of this order. Failure to do so will

be deemed a statement of non-opposition and consent to the granting of the motion

and may also constitute a ground for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, 

including a recommendation that plaintiff’s case be involuntarily dismissed with 

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

3. Defendant may file a written reply to any opposition filed by plaintiff within 10

days of plaintiff’s filing. The court will take the pending motions under 

submission upon conclusion of this briefing schedule.

Dated: January 13, 2025

8, roda24cv3430.nooppo

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-03430-DJC-CKD Document 7 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2