Opinion
Case No. 11-CV-10304
10-17-2011
HON.
ORDER DISMISSING SHOW CAUSE
On July 5, 2011, the court issued an order to show cause as to why plaintiff's complaint should not be stricken and this case should not be dismissed as plaintiff failed to file a response to defendants' motion to strike/motion for a more definite statement. The court issued another order to show cause on October 5, 2011 ordering plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed because of plaintiff's failure to comply with the Local Rules and failure to timely file a response to the motion to strike/motion for a more definite statement. Plaintiff's October 14, 2011 response explains that technical issues, office space issues, and family medical issues delayed counsel's compliance with the e-filing requirements. Plaintiff's October 14, 2011 response is single-spaced, in violation of Local Rule 5.1(2). The court will allow the October 14, 2011 response to stand but warns plaintiff that future failure to comply with the Local Rules will not be tolerated. Based on plaintiff's response to the October 5, 2011 order to show cause,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court's July 5, 2011 and October 5, 2011 orders to show cause be DISMISSED.
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
October 17, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Marcia Beauchemin
Deputy Clerk