IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 13, 2006
DAVID SANDERS, PLAINTIFF,
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL INC., U-HAUL OF ARIZONA, AND AMERCO, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge:
On August 4, 2005, Plaintiff, David Sanders, by and through his attorney, Charles Chapman, filed suit against Defendants in the Madison County, Illinois Circuit Court (Doc. 2). On September 26, 2005, Defendant U-Haul Co. of Arizona removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction (Doc. 1). Thereafter, Plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw as attorney from the case and to allow Plaintiff 120 days to have new counsel enter an appearance (Doc. 6). On October 21, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw and allowed Plaintiff 120 days for new counsel to enter an appearance (Doc. 7). On October 26, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc.8).
As of this date, Plaintiff has not had new counsel enter appearance on his behalf. According to the Court's calculations, the 120 days has passed. Thus, Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Further, Plaintiff has not responded to the pending motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court may consider this failure to respond an admission of the merits of the motion. However, since Sanders is proceeding pro se the Court ALLOWS Sanders up to and including February 27, 2006 to respond to the motion to dismiss. In responding to the motion to dismiss, Sanders should utilize the Local Rules of this Court, the Federal Rules of Procedure and any applicable case law. Further, the Court NOTIFIES Sanders that in the event he fails to respond to the motion to dismiss by February 27, 2006, the motion to dismiss may be granted and his case dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 13th day of February, 2006.
David R. Herndon United States District Judge
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.