Oliphant v. Moynihan et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01187


Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LEONARD VAUGHN OLIPHANT, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01187-HSG Plaintiff, 8 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S v. OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' 9 MOTIONS TO DISMISS BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 36 Defendants. 11 12 On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff Leonard Vaughn Oliphant filed an Opposition to the Motion to Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Dismiss filed by Defendants Brian T. Moynihan and Bruce R. Thompson. Dkt. No. 36. 14 Oliphant's Opposition does not substantively address the arguments contained in Defendants' 15 Motion. Instead, Oliphant argues that—despite filing a timely motion to dismiss—Moynihan and 16 Thompson were still required to file an Answer to Oliphant's Amended Complaint and, having not 17 done so, "are squarely in default." Id. at 6. Oliphant is mistaken. 18 A motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure automatically alters the 19 time for filing a responsive pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4) (responsive pleading due 14 20 days after notice of the court's action on the interim motion); see also Benjamin v. California 21 Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 2:12-CV-0392 WBS KJN, 2013 WL 1563336, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22 12, 2013) ("[The deadline to file a responsive pleading] is suspended pending the court's decision 23 on an interim responsive motion."); Sobayo v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. C 09-00615 JW, 2009 24 WL 1330834, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2009) ("Under Rule 12(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure, a motion to dismiss pursuant to [Rule] 12(b)(6) alters the time for filing a responsive 26 pleading."); Douglas v. Executive Bd. of the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, No. 27 CV08159SEJLLMB, 2008 WL 4809910, at *1 (D. Idaho Oct. 3, 2008) ("[A] timely motion to 28 dismiss is a responsive pleading sufficient to prevent entry of a default judgment."). Accordingly, 1 Moynihan and Thompson were not required to answer Oliphant's Amended Complaint during the 2 pendency of their Motion to Dismiss. 3 If Oliphant opposes the relief sought by Moynihan and Thompson on substantive grounds, 4 he must file an Opposition providing the legal basis for his opposition no later than May 29, 2015. 5 See Dkt. No. 35 (granting Oliphant's second request for an extension of time). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: May 20, 2015 8 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2