Bruce Rorty v. American Home Shield Corporation et al

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO TIMELY OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Plaintiffs counsel is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not issue sanctions against him for failing to comply with this Court 9;s Local Rules. Plaintiff's counsel's Response is due no later than Tuesday, January 2, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good cause for Plaintiff's counsel's failure to timely oppose the Motion. RMCB may file a substantive Reply in support of the Motion by no later than Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-07747-BRO (JCx)

Title

BRUCE RORTY V. AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION ET AL.

Date

December 28, 2016

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO TIMELY OPPOSE
MOTION TO DISMISS
Pending before the Court is Defendant Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.,
a.k.a. American Medical Collection Agency’s (“RMCB”) Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No.
11 (“Motion”).) RMCB filed its Motion on November 7, 2016, noticing a hearing date of
January 9, 2017. (Id.) Defendant Pacific Bell Telephone Company, d.b.a. AT&T
California (“AT&T”), joined in RMCB’s Motion on November 16, 2016. (See Dkt. No.
12.)
Under the Central District’s Local Rules, a party must oppose a motion at least
twenty-one (21) days prior to the scheduled hearing date. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9.1
Accordingly, Plaintiff Bruce Rorty’s (“Plaintiff”) opposition to the Motion, if any, was
due no later than December 19, 2016. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(6)(A).
As of December 19, 2016, Plaintiff had filed no opposition.2 Instead, Plaintiff opposed
the Motion on December 23, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 15.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the
Court should not issue sanctions against him for failing to comply with this Court’s Local

1

A copy of the Local Civil Rules is available at the United States District Court, Central District of
California’s website: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/court-procedures/local-rules.
2

RMCB filed a “Reply” on December 22, 2016, arguing that this Court should grant the pending
Motion because Plaintiff failed to timely oppose the Motion. (See Dkt. No. 14.) A notice of non-receipt
of opposition would have sufficed for such purpose. Accordingly, the Court will treat RMCB’s filing as
a notice of non-receipt of opposition, rather than as a substantive Reply in support of its Motion.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-07747-BRO (JCx)

Title

BRUCE RORTY V. AMERICAN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION ET AL.

Date

December 28, 2016

Rules. Plaintiff’s counsel’s Response is due no later than Tuesday, January 2, 2017
at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good cause for
Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to timely oppose the Motion. RMCB may file a substantive
Reply in support of the Motion by no later than Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:00
p.m.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

rf

Page 2 of 2