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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK T. ANDREWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CONSUMER AFFAIRS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00252-WHO 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF MARK 

ANDREWS’S MOTION RE LATEFILED OPPOSITIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 31

Plaintiff Mark Andrews, proceeding pro se, filed a motion and requests that I accept his 

late-filed oppositions to the defendants’ pending four motions to dismiss, which are set for hearing 

on August 23, 2017. See Mot. (Dkt. No. 31). In a declaration he has filed in support of the motion 

he explains that he is proceeding pro se because his attorney has become seriously ill and is no 

longer able to assist him in pursuing this case. See Andrews Decl. ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 32). He explains 

that because he is unfamiliar with the law and the rules for filing and responding to motions, he 

was not aware of the deadlines for filing his oppositions in response to the pending motions to 

dismiss.1 Id. Andrews also states that he will be seeking leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint, though it is not clear if he intends to seek such leave before the pending motions to 

dismiss are heard. See Andrews Decl. at 2. 

In order to ensure that Andrews has a full opportunity to be heard, and acknowledging that 

 

1

The Court urges Andrews to obtain a copy of the Pro Se Handbook, available free of charge from 

the Court’s website (www.cand.uscourts.gov) or in the Clerk’s Office on the 16th Floor, 450 

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. Andrews may seek assistance from the Legal 

Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling (415) 782-8982 or 

signing up for an appointment on the 15th Floor of the Courthouse, Room 2796. At the Legal 

Help Center, Andrews may speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, 

but not legal representation. 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

he is proceeding pro se, I accept and will consider his late-filed oppositions to the pending motions 

to dismiss. Defendants may file supplemental replies to these oppositions by August 1, 2017. 

Although Andrews indicates that he intends to seek leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint, because the defendants have raised a number of potentially dispositive legal arguments

in their pending motions, resolution of which may narrow or eliminate some of Andrews’s claims, 

the parties and the Court will benefit from proceeding with the current motions to dismiss. I will 

consider whether to grant Andrews leave to file a Second Amended Complaint after ruling on the 

defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The hearing on the pending motions to dismiss remains set for Wednesday, August 23, 

2017 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2017

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge