Rodriguez v. Well Path

Opinion

3 4 7 *** Michael Rodriguez, 8 Case No. 2:19-cv-02074-ART-VCF Plaintiff, 9 vs. ORDER 10

Well Path, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 I previously granted incarcerated pro se plaintiff Michael Rodriguez’s motion for substitution per 14 Rule 25 in part. ECF No. 85. I ordered defense counsel at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP (1) to 15 obtain information about the representative of the estate or the appropriate successor and (2) to notify 16 the same of this lawsuit. Id. Defense counsel filed a declaration stating that she located Dr. Duran’s 17 widow, but asked for a stay of my order until after the district judge decides the fully dispositive motion 18 to dismiss. ECF No. 58. Ordinarily I would expect the defendant to file a motion so the parties could 19 brief the issue. Given that plaintiff Rodriguez recently asked the Court for a full stay of this case (and 20 21 the defendants filed a notice of non-opposition), however, I find that staying my previous order until 22 after the district judge decides the motion to dismiss will not prejudice any of the parties in this 23 situation. 25 I ORDER that my previous order (ECF No. 85) is STAYED. Defense counsel has until thirty days after the Court decides the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 58) to comply with my order (ECF No. 85)

5 if this action survives dismissal.

4 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 5 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 6 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 7 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 8 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file ° objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written

4 notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon

15 each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel.

Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action. 18 DATED this 2nd day of March 2023. et 19 L Loe Sete gegpe’t Sit gn ~ CAM FERENBACH □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25