Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05544/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05544-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Berkeley
Defendant
Andzej Paczynski
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDZEJ PACZYNSKI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF BERKELEY, and DOES 1–100,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05544 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Defendant noticed a motion to dismiss scheduled for hearing on July 29, 2010. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, any brief in opposition to the motion was due on July 8,

2010, but no such opposition has been received. Plaintiff — who is proceeding pro se — is

ordered to respond by JULY 29, 2010, AT NOON, and show cause for his failure to respond to

the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternately to file statement of

nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). If plaintiff fails to do so,

this matter shall likely be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This order to show cause does not

constitute permission to file a late opposition. The hearing on July 29 is VACATED. A hearing

will be scheduled by the Court at a later date if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05544-WHA Document 28 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 1