Brinson

Brinson v. State of California

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 2, 20254:25-cv-02381California357 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAD BRINSON,

Case No. 25-cv-02381-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 10 Defendants.

Defendants Joshua Hammack and Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services filed a motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. [Docket No. 5.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion was due on March 28, 2025, but no such opposition has been received. Plaintiff Brad Brinson is ordered to respond by April 8, 2025, and show cause for his failure to respond to the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). If Brinson intends to oppose the motion, he must also file an opposition brief by April 8, 2025. The court will determine whether to accept the late opposition brief after reviewing the response to the order to show cause. In addition, there are three named Defendants that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.