Opinion
No. CIV. S-13-0402 LKK/EFB
2013-10-17
ORDER
Pending before the court in the above-captioned case is plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint, originally scheduled to be heard on October 21, 2013. (ECF No. 28.) Defendants, represented by Martin H. Orlick, failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition, as required by Local Rule 230(c). Accordingly, this court issued an order (i) continuing the hearing on the motion until November 18, 2013; (ii) directing defendants to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition by Monday, October 13, 2013 at 4:30 p.m.; and (iii) ordering counsel for defendants to show cause in writing, no later than October 17, 2013, as to why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to respond to the motion in a timely manner. (ECF No. 29.)
Defendants failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition as directed. But counsel for defendants has responded to the order to show cause. In a declaration, he avers that he failed to oppose the motion because he "understood that the case had settled, and therefore, Plaintiff would file a notice of settlement and that all deadlines would be vacated." (Decl. Orlick 2:25-26, ECF No. 30.)
In light of the foregoing, the court hereby orders as follows:
If this case has settled, plaintiff is DIRECTED to file with the court either a stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) or a request for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), whichever is more appropriate based on the terms of the settlement. If this case has not settled, plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a declaration to that effect, and to therein also inform the court as to whether he still seeks leave to amend his complaint. In either event, plaintiff is to make the requisite filing within seven (7) days of docketing of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT