Luthra v. United States
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:21-cv-00402
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Luthra v. United States, Judge Westmore ordered plaintiffs and the government to explain their positions before deciding the pending motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs, Hardeep Luthra and the other named plaintiffs, must respond to the court’s order; the United States must explain why its motion to dismiss should be granted.
What happened
In Luthra v. United States, the plaintiffs did not file a timely response to the government’s motion to dismiss. They also did not respond to an earlier court order requiring them to explain the missed deadline and file required notices.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to explain within one week why the case should not be dismissed for failing to pursue it. The plaintiffs must also file the required notices and either oppose the motion or state that they do not oppose it. The government may reply if the plaintiffs file an opposition.
The court also ordered the United States to explain within one week why its motion to dismiss should be granted in light of two cited Ninth Circuit decisions. Judge Westmore did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Luthra v. United States · No. 4:21-cv-00402
- Kandis Westmore
- Feb. 19, 2021
Background
The United States filed a motion to dismiss on January 21, 2021. Under the court’s local rules, the plaintiffs’ opposition was due on February 4, 2021. The plaintiffs did not file an opposition.
On February 5, 2021, the court issued an order requiring the plaintiffs to file a notice consenting to or declining magistrate-judge jurisdiction, file an opposition or statement that they did not oppose the motion, and explain why their opposition was late. Their response was due February 16, 2021. The plaintiffs had not responded by the date of this order.
Court’s order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to show cause—meaning to explain—within one week why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, or failing to pursue the case. The plaintiffs were ordered to file the required consent or declination notice, file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss, and explain why they failed to timely respond to both the motion and the February 5 order.
The court stated that, if the plaintiffs filed an opposition, the United States could file a reply within one week after the opposition. The court separately ordered the United States to show cause within one week why its motion to dismiss should be granted in light of D.L. v. Vassilev, 858 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2017), and Staple v. United States, 740 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1984).
Result
This order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not dismiss the case. It required both sides to provide additional explanations and filings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.