From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connell v. Small Business Administration

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 1, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0048 LKK KJM PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-0048 LKK KJM PS.

August 1, 2006


ORDER


This action was referred to the undersigned as provided by Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). Calendared for hearing on August 9, 2006 is defendant's motion to dismiss. By order filed June 29, 2006, the motion was previously continued for hearing because it appeared plaintiff had not timely filed opposition, due to delays in docketing plaintiff's pleadings. Plaintiff has now timely filed an amended opposition under the June 29, 2006 order.

Defendant moves to strike plaintiff's amended opposition. Although defendant is correct that the Local Rules do not allow for plaintiff's amended pleadings, given plaintiff's pro se status, the court will consider plaintiff's amended opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's motion to strike is denied.

2. Reply to plaintiff's amended opposition shall be filed no later than 12:00 noon PST on August 4, 2006.


Summaries of

O'Connell v. Small Business Administration

United States District Court, E.D. California
Aug 1, 2006
No. CIV S-06-0048 LKK KJM PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006)
Case details for

O'Connell v. Small Business Administration

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN O'CONNELL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 1, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-06-0048 LKK KJM PS (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006)