Griswold

(PS) Sharma v. Griswold

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 26, 20192:19-cv-01731California865 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NARENDRA SHARMA, No. 2:19–cv–1731–MCE–KJN (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING HEARING AND

SETTING NEW BRIEFING SCHEDULE,

v. AND

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

RICHARDSON C. GRISWOLD, (ECF No. 10) Defendant. 16 Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant on September 3, 2019, and filed a first amended complaint on October 17. (ECF Nos. 1, 6.) On November 1, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, setting the matter for a hearing on December 5. (ECF No. 10.) Under the Court’s local rules, Plaintiff was obligated to file his opposition (or statement of non–opposition) by November 22. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c) (“Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect,…

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.