From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guinn v. Sturm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 27, 2011
Case No. 1:10-cv-00320 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:10-cv-00320 LJO SKO

10-27-2011

PAULO EUGENE GUINN, Plaintiff, v. J STURM, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On September 28, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and hearing for the matter was set for November 2, 2011. (Doc. 30.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230, any opposition to the motion was to be filed "not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date." Local Rule 230(c). Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to file an opposition within that time frame. Instead, Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition on October 26, 2011. (Docs. 43-45.) At no point did Plaintiff seek leave from this Court to file an opposition out-of-time.

The Court invested time and resources in evaluating the case after the time the opposition was due, but before the time the untimely opposition was received. This District does not have the needed resources to have to redo its work.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by no later than October 28, 2011, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why his untimely opposition should not be stricken for failing to comply with Local Rule 230(c). See Local Rule 110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Guinn v. Sturm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 27, 2011
Case No. 1:10-cv-00320 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)
Case details for

Guinn v. Sturm

Case Details

Full title:PAULO EUGENE GUINN, Plaintiff, v. J STURM, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 27, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:10-cv-00320 LJO SKO (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2011)