KATYAL v. BRENNAN

No. 2:15-cv-1021-TLN-EFB PS.

PRASHANT KATYAL, Plaintiff, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Cause: 29 U.S.C. § 201 Fair Labor Standards Act
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Prashant Katyal, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Patrick R. Donahoe, Defendant, represented by Victoria L. Boesch , United States Attorney's Office.


ORDER

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and noticed the motion for hearing on January 25, 2015. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion in violation of Local Rule 230. Accordingly, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment was continued to February 15, 2017, and plaintiff was ordered to show cause, in writing, by no later than February 1, 2017, why sanction should not be imposed for his failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff was also ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition by February 1, 2017, and admonished that failure to file an opposition would be deemed a statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. Id.

In response, plaintiff explains that a medical condition prevented him from timely filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion. ECF No. 16. He further states that he is scheduled to undergo back surgery, and therefore he requires an additional 30 days to respond to the pending motion. In light of plaintiff's representations, the order to show cause is discharged and no sanctions are imposed. Further, the court grants plaintiff's request for additional time to respond to defendant's motion.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The January 13, 2017 order to show cause (ECF No. 15) is discharged and no sanctions are imposed.

2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond to defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) is granted.

3. The hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) is continued to March 15, 2017.

4. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than March 1, 2017.

5. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that defendant's motion be granted and/or the action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

6. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before March 8, 2017.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases