Brinson v. State of California

N.D. California

Brinson v. State of California

DecidedApril 2, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-02381

StatusUnknown

This text of Brinson v. State of California (Brinson v. State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brinson v. State of California, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRAD BRINSON, 7 Case No. 25-cv-02381-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 Defendants Joshua Hammack and Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services filed a 13 motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. [Docket No. 5.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any 14 brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion was due on March 28, 2025, but no such opposition has 15 been received. Plaintiff Brad Brinson is ordered to respond by April 8, 2025, and show cause for 16 his failure to respond to the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to 17 file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). If Brinson 18 intends to oppose the motion, he must also file an opposition brief by April 8, 2025. The court 19 will determine whether to accept the late opposition brief after reviewing the response to the order 20 to show cause. 21 In addition, there are three named Defendants that have not appeared: State of California, 22 California Highway Patrol, and Officer P. Santiago. The record does not indicate whether 23 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) was ever served on these Defendants. The court cannot 24 decide the pending motion without the consent of all parties, served and unserved. See Williams v. 25 King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017). By April 8, 2025, Plaintiff shall file proof of service of 26 the FAC on State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Officer P. Santiago, or shall file a 27 status report on the service of the FAC. 1 If Plaintiff does not respond by April 8, 2025, the court may recommend that Defendants’ 2 motion be granted or that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 2, 2025 ______________________________________ 6 Donna M. Ryu Chief Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 BRAD BRINSON, 7 Case No. 25-cv-02381-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 Defendants Joshua Hammack and Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services filed a 13 motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. [Docket No. 5.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any 14 brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion was due on March 28, 2025, but no such opposition has 15 been received. Plaintiff Brad Brinson is ordered to respond by April 8, 2025, and show cause for 16 his failure to respond to the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to 17 file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). If Brinson 18 intends to oppose the motion, he must also file an opposition brief by April 8, 2025. The court 19 will determine whether to accept the late opposition brief after reviewing the response to the order 20 to show cause. 21 In addition, there are three named Defendants that have not appeared: State of California, 22 California Highway Patrol, and Officer P. Santiago. The record does not indicate whether 23 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) was ever served on these Defendants. The court cannot 24 decide the pending motion without the consent of all parties, served and unserved. See Williams v. 25 King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017). By April 8, 2025, Plaintiff shall file proof of service of 26 the FAC on State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Officer P. Santiago, or shall file a 27 status report on the service of the FAC. 1 If Plaintiff does not respond by April 8, 2025, the court may recommend that Defendants’ 2 motion be granted or that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: April 2, 2025 ______________________________________ 6 Donna M. Ryu Chief Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brinson v. State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brinson-v-state-of-california-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack