Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robert Joseph Mccarty v. John v. Roos

April 30, 2013

ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY, PLAINTIFF(S), )
v.
JOHN V. ROOS, ET AL.,
DEFENDANT(S).



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING FILING OF ) AMENDED RESPONSE TO MOTION ) TO DISMISS THAT COMPLIES WITH THE LOCAL RULES

On April 23, 2013, the Court struck Plaintiff's response to the pending motion to dismiss and ordered that he file a new response in compliance with the Local Rules no later than May 6, 2013. Docket No. 148. The Court has now received a notice that Plaintiff does not believe he is able to limit his response to the page limit outlined in the Local Rules. See Docket No. 150. Pro se litigants are required to follow the rules of this Court. See Carter v. C.I.R., 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff here has failed to show that an exception should be made to the page limitation and formatting requirements of Local Rules 7-4 and 10-1. As such, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, no later than May 13, 2013, to submit a response to the motion to dismiss that complies with the Local Rules, including that it be limited to no more than 30 pages of double-spaced text.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to file a proper response to the motion to dismiss may be considered by the district judge as Plaintiff consenting to the granting of the motion to dismiss. See Local Rule 7-2(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130430

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.