Leticia Pina v. Columbus Capital Lending, LLC

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES; (2) VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 6); AND (3) VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Josephine L. S taton: For the foregoing reasons, the dates for the hearing on Defendants Motion to Dismiss and for the parties Scheduling Conference are VACATED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a response within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order. Failu re to do so will result in dismissal of this action. To the extent that Defendant has been communicating with Plaintiff via email, it is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order via email to Plaintiff forthwith and to file a declaration within five (5) days of this Order confirming that it has done so. (Refer to order for further details.) (es)

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:17-cv-02037-JLS-JDE
Title: Leticia Pina v. Columbus Capital Lending, LLC

Date: January 11, 2018

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
LOCAL RULES; (2) VACATING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 6); AND (3)
VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Columbus Capital
Lending. (Mot., Doc. 6.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this
Court’s Local Rules. Further, the hearing on Defendant’s Motion set for January 12,
2018, at 2:30p.m. VACATED. The parties’ scheduling conference set for January 26,
2018 at 1:30p.m. is also VACATED.
Pursuant to Local Rule 83-2.4, if a pro se party changes the address for which she
is registered to receive service of process, she must notify the Clerk of Court within five
days of the change. C.D. Cal. R. 83-2.4. Plaintiff Leticia Pina is a pro se litigant. On
November 30, 2017, the Court issued its Order Setting Scheduling Conference, and the
Clerk of Court sent notice of the filing by U.S. Mail to Plaintiff’s registered address. (See
Doc. 9.) On December 22, 2017, the notice was returned to the Court as undeliverable,
no forwarding address provided. (Id.)
In contravention of Local Rule 83-2.4, it appears that Plaintiff has failed to notify
the Clerk of Court of her change of address. Failure to follow a district court’s local rules
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:17-cv-02037-JLS-JDE
Title: Leticia Pina v. Columbus Capital Lending, LLC

Date: January 11, 2018

is a proper ground for dismissal. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the Court on its own motion ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing,
why this case should not be dismissed for her failure to comply with Local Rule 83-2.4.
Alternatively, Plaintiff may respond by filing a notice of her current address. Plaintiff is
ORDERED to respond within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order.
Separately, Local Rule 5-3.2.1 provides that individuals who are not registered to
receive service through the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system must be served in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. C.D. Cal. R. 5-3.2.1. The moving
party must then file a proof of service in the form of a declaration. Id. Plaintiff is not
registered to receive service of process electronically through ECF, and Defendant did
not file a proof of service when it filed its Motion. However, the Court recognizes that
notice of the Motion cannot be properly served under Rule 5, which provides that service
may be accomplished by mail, until Plaintiff has provided a current address. Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 5 (b)(2)(C). Accordingly, Defendant need not take any action until Plaintiff has
responded to this OSC, and the Court has discharged it. At that time, the Court will order
Defendant to serve Plaintiff with notice of its Motion, and the hearing date may be reset
once Defendant has filed an adequate proof of service.
For the foregoing reasons, the dates for the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss and for the parties’ Scheduling Conference are VACATED. Plaintiff is
ORDERED to file a response within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order. Failure
to do so will result in dismissal of this action. To the extent that Defendant has been
communicating with Plaintiff via email, it is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Order
via email to Plaintiff forthwith and to file a declaration within five (5) days of this Order
confirming that it has done so.
Initials of Preparer: tg

_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2