From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dodson v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 17, 2013
No. CIV. S-13-0402 LKK/EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013)

Opinion

No. CIV. S-13-0402 LKK/EFB

2013-10-17

ROBERT DODSON, Plaintiff, v. STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS ACQUISITION COMPANY II, LLC dba BURGER KING #09937, et al., Defendants.


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


Summaries of

Dodson v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 17, 2013
No. CIV. S-13-0402 LKK/EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013)
Case details for

Dodson v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Company II

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT DODSON, Plaintiff, v. STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS ACQUISITION COMPANY II…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Oct 17, 2013

Citations

No. CIV. S-13-0402 LKK/EFB (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013)

Citing Cases

Wild v. Benchmark Pest Control, Inc.

Notably, "courts are in disagreement" as to whether an affirmative defense is required to only give fair…

United States v. Gibson Wine Co.

Some courts—including this Court—suggested that the plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses.…