Free Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California


File Size: 16.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: August 25, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 335 Words, 1,999 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/casd/260655/16.pdf

Download Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California ( 16.8 kB)


Preview Order on Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California
Case 3:07-cv-02432-H-LSP

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHIMSKY, as Trustee of THE ANN P. SHIMSKY TRUST and representative of ANN P. SHIIMSKY, deceased, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, and THC-ORANGE COUNTY INC. dba KINDRED HOSPITAL SAN DIEGO, Defendants. Plaintiff Arnold Schimsky brought this complaint on December 31, 2007, with the assistance of counsel, as trustee of the Ann P. Shimsky Trust and representative of the estate of Ann P. Shimsky. (Doc. No. 1.) On July 11, 2008, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 11.) On June 12, 2008, On July 30, 2008, defendant THC-Orange County Inc. filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 13.) On July 31, 2008, the United States Office of Personnel Management filed its motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 15.) Both motions were noticed for a hearing on September 2, 2008. Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(2), the time for filing an opposition is normally 14 calendar days prior to the noticed hearing date. At this time, the Court has received no opposition from Plaintiff.
-107cv2432

CASE NO. 07-CV-2432-H (LSP) ORDER SUBMITTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Case 3:07-cv-02432-H-LSP

Document 16

Filed 08/25/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Absent a subsequent order to the contrary, the Court will exercise its discretion to submit these motions on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1). Accordingly, the Court vacates the hearing on the motions to dismiss. The Court strongly encourages Plaintiff to file an opposition to the pending motions. If he does not do so, the Court may dismiss this action in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 25, 2008 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COPIES TO: All parties of record.

-2-

07cv2432