From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richards v. Tumlin

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
21-cv-04420-PJH (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-04420-PJH

08-09-2021

LARRY RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY TUMLIN, et al., Defendants.


ORDER RE CONSENT AND HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 13

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, United States District Judge

The court is in receipt of plaintiff's “ex parte motion for enlargement of time to decide upon proceeding before a magistrate judge” and request for telephonic hearings. Dkt. 13. In it, plaintiff requests 45 to 90 days to decide whether to proceed before a magistrate judge. Id. He also requests that the court permit him to proceed on any hearing by telephone. Id. at 1 n.1. To support his requests, plaintiff states that he is “extraordinarily sick, ” faces various co-morbidities to Covid-19, and has been unable to pay his phone bill. Id.

The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiff's motion. First, on June 15, 2021, the parties were directed to indicate their consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction by June 22, 2021. Defendants did so on June 17, 2021, and when plaintiff failed to respond, the clerk of court reassigned this action to the undersigned's docket on June 25, 2021. Dkt. 9. Thus, the time for plaintiff to elect whether or not to proceed before a magistrate judge has passed. However, the court will generally entertain a consent to proceed before the magistrate judge at any time before it has ruled on a substantive motion. Second, unless otherwise specified, the court conducts all hearings via Zoom, not telephone, but the court will consider a making an exception for plaintiff when a hearing is necessary.

The court further notes that certain defendants filed a motion to dismiss the instant action on June 29, 2021. Dkt. 11. To date, plaintiff has failed to oppose that motion. Th e court will permit plaintiff 14 days from the date of this order to either file a consent to proceed before the magistrate judge or an opposition to the motion to dismiss. If a consent is filed, the case will be reassigned to a magistrate judge for all purposes, including the pending motion. If no consent is filed, the court will adjudicate defendants' motion to dismiss with or without plaintiff's opposition. In any event, the court will decide defendants' motion on the papers. The August 12, 2021 hearing date for the motion to dismiss is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Richards v. Tumlin

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
21-cv-04420-PJH (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)
Case details for

Richards v. Tumlin

Case Details

Full title:LARRY RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY TUMLIN, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 9, 2021

Citations

21-cv-04420-PJH (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)