Brinson v. State of California

Background

Joshua Hammack and Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services filed a motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. Under the court's local rules, Brad Brinson's opposition was due March 28, 2025, but the court had not received one.

The case also named the State of California, the California Highway Patrol, and Officer P. Santiago as defendants who had not appeared. The record did not show whether Brinson had served those defendants with his first amended complaint. The court stated that it could not decide the pending motion without the consent of all parties, including parties who had been served and those who had not.

Order

The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Brinson to explain why the court should not take action based on his failure to respond. By April 8, 2025, Brinson had to either explain his failure to oppose the motion or file a statement saying he did not oppose it. If he intended to oppose the motion, he also had to file an opposition brief. The court would decide whether to accept any late opposition after reviewing his response.

By the same deadline, Brinson had to file proof that the first amended complaint had been served on the three defendants who had not appeared, or file a status report about service. The court warned that failure to respond could lead it to recommend granting the defendants' motion or dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.

Disposition

The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It entered the order to show cause and set the April 8, 2025 deadlines.