From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmidt v. JP Morgan Chase

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 15, 2013
No. C-13-00098 DMR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)

Opinion

No. C-13-00098 DMR

03-15-2013

JAMES SCHMIDT, Plaintiff(s), v. JP MORGAN CHASE, Defendant(s).


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. has filed a motion to dismiss. [Docket Nos. 7, 22.] Currently, the motion is set for a court hearing on May 9, 2013. Plaintiffs James M. Schmidt and Robert M. Schmidt are pursuing this action without legal representation. According to the local Court rules, Plaintiffs should have filed any brief in opposition to Defendant's motion by March 7, 2013. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-3; see also N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-7(d) (the continuance of a hearing of a motion does not extend the time for filing and serving opposition papers). The court has received no such opposition.

The court ORDERS Plaintiffs to respond by March 25, 2013 and explain their failure to respond to the motion. In addition, Plaintiffs must simultaneously (1) submit their opposition to the court or (2) file a statement of non-opposition to the motion. This order to show cause does not indicate that the court will necessarily accept Plaintiffs' late submission. If Plaintiffs do not respond by March 25, 2013, Defendant's motion may be granted.

The court further ORDERS that Defendant shall file a reply, if any, to Plaintiffs' opposition no later than April 1, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Schmidt v. JP Morgan Chase

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 15, 2013
No. C-13-00098 DMR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Schmidt v. JP Morgan Chase

Case Details

Full title:JAMES SCHMIDT, Plaintiff(s), v. JP MORGAN CHASE, Defendant(s).

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 15, 2013

Citations

No. C-13-00098 DMR (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013)