Luthra v. United States

N.D. California

Luthra v. United States

DecidedFebruary 19, 2021

Docket4:21-cv-00402

StatusUnknown

This text of Luthra v. United States (Luthra v. United States) 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

Luthra v. United States, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HARDEEP LUTHRA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00402-KAW

8 Plaintiffs, SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 5 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Defendant.

12 13 On January 21, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 5.) Pursuant to Civil 14 Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition was due 14 days after the motion was filed, which was 15 February 4, 2021. 16 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. On February 5, 2021, the Court issued an order to 17 show cause, requiring Plaintiffs to: (1) file a consent or declination notice, (2) file an opposition or 18 statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and (3) file a response to this order to show 19 cause explaining why the opposition was not timely filed. (Dkt. No. 9 at 1.) Plaintiffs’ response 20 was due by February 16, 2021. 21 As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not responded to the order to show cause. 22 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, within one week of the date of this 23 order, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by: (1) filing a consent or 24 declination notice, (2) filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, 25 and (3) explaining why Plaintiffs failed to timely file their opposition and response to the Court’s 26 February 5, 2021 order to show cause. Should an opposition be filed, Defendant may file a reply 27 within one week of the date of Plaintiffs’ opposition. Failure to respond will result in the Court 1 failure to prosecute. 2 Additionally, having reviewed Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court ORDERS 3 Defendant to show cause why its motion to dismiss should be granted in light of D.L. v. Vassilev, 4 |} 858 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2017) and Staple v. United States, 740 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1984). 5 || Defendant’s response is due within one week of the date of this order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: February 19, 2021 . 8 Kens A. le h ORE 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 7 HARDEEP LUTHRA, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00402-KAW

8 Plaintiffs, SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 5 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 11 Defendant.

12 13 On January 21, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 5.) Pursuant to Civil 14 Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition was due 14 days after the motion was filed, which was 15 February 4, 2021. 16 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. On February 5, 2021, the Court issued an order to 17 show cause, requiring Plaintiffs to: (1) file a consent or declination notice, (2) file an opposition or 18 statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and (3) file a response to this order to show 19 cause explaining why the opposition was not timely filed. (Dkt. No. 9 at 1.) Plaintiffs’ response 20 was due by February 16, 2021. 21 As of the date of this order, Plaintiffs have not responded to the order to show cause. 22 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause, within one week of the date of this 23 order, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by: (1) filing a consent or 24 declination notice, (2) filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, 25 and (3) explaining why Plaintiffs failed to timely file their opposition and response to the Court’s 26 February 5, 2021 order to show cause. Should an opposition be filed, Defendant may file a reply 27 within one week of the date of Plaintiffs’ opposition. Failure to respond will result in the Court 1 failure to prosecute. 2 Additionally, having reviewed Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court ORDERS 3 Defendant to show cause why its motion to dismiss should be granted in light of D.L. v. Vassilev, 4 |} 858 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2017) and Staple v. United States, 740 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1984). 5 || Defendant’s response is due within one week of the date of this order. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: February 19, 2021 . 8 Kens A. le h ORE 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Luthra v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luthra-v-united-states-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack