Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2022

Javidi v. Superior Court, Family Court Contra Costa County

Judge
Saundra Armstrong
Docket
4:21-cv-05393
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Javidi v. Superior Court, Judge Armstrong gave Massoud Javidi another chance to oppose dismissal after he missed the deadline.

Who this affects

Massoud Javidi was given additional time to oppose the Superior Court’s motion to dismiss and was warned that failing to do so could result in further action against his case.

What happened

Massoud Javidi, representing himself, sued the Superior Court, Family Court Contra Costa County, and Shirin Farokhian. The Superior Court moved to dismiss Javidi’s amended complaint.

Javidi did not timely respond to the motion. He later filed documents saying he opposed the request, but the court found that they did not appear to be a proper opposition, although they included some comments addressing the motion’s substance.

Judge Saundra B. Armstrong gave Javidi until January 21, 2022, to file and serve his opposition. The court warned that failing to respond could lead to granting the motion or dismissing the action without further notice, and it vacated the scheduled hearing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Javidi v. Superior Court, Family Court Contra Costa County · No. 4:21-cv-05393
Judge
Saundra Armstrong
Date
Jan. 10, 2022

Background

Massoud Javidi, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Superior Court, Family Court Contra Costa County, and Shirin Farokhian. He filed his initial complaint on July 14, 2021, and an amended complaint on November 9, 2021. On December 1, 2021, the Superior Court moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Under the applicable local rule, Javidi’s response was due by December 15, 2021. He did not file a timely response. On December 22, the Superior Court asked the court to grant its motion as unopposed. That same day, Javidi filed a document stating that he opposed the request, and he filed an amended version on December 28. The court said those filings did not appear to be a proper opposition, although they contained some comments that appeared to address the motion to dismiss.

Court’s Action

The court explained that its standing order allowed it to treat the failure to file a timely response as consent to the requested relief. It also noted that it was required to consider less severe alternatives and that Javidi had recently expressed an intent to oppose the motion. The court therefore did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss at this stage. Instead, Judge Saundra B. Armstrong ordered Javidi to file and serve his opposition by January 21, 2022.

The order warned that if Javidi failed to respond on time or failed to follow applicable procedural rules, the motion could be granted and/or the action could be dismissed without further notice. If Javidi filed a timely response, the Superior Court could file a reply by January 28, 2022. The court also vacated the January 12 hearing and stated that it would decide the motion without oral argument.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.