Lockwood

(PC) Rood v. Lockwood

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 20242:19-cv-01806California1,073 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 COLTON JAMES ROOD, No. 2:19-cv-1806 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

LOCKWOOD, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting a fourteen-day extension of time for any pending deadlines. ECF No. 98. The only potential deadlines at issue are the time for responding to defendants’ motion to strike (ECF No. 93) and plaintiff’s deadline to file a reply in support of his motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 98). Because those motions may be resolved without further briefing and are addressed below, the request for an extension of time will be denied as moot. Defendants moved to strike an affidavit filed by plaintiff’s mother in support of his motion for temporary restraining order, on the grounds that no such motion had been filed and plaintiff’s mother cannot prepare and file documents for plaintiff because she is not licensed to practice law in California. …

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.