Friends of Roeding Park, et al v. City of Fresno, et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/27/2012. (Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not dismiss this action in its entirety. Plaintiffs are to submit a brief establishing cause to this Court no later than Friday, 3/30/2012. Failure to file the required brief will result in dismissal, without further notice, of Plaintiffs action in its entirety and with prejudice.) (Gaumnitz, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRIENDS OF ROEDING PARK, a California
non-profit unincorporated association; and
10 LISA FLORES, ED BYRD, and PATRICIA
1:11-cv-02070 LJO SKO
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
14 CITY OF FRESNO, a California municipal
corporation; FRESNO’S CHAFFEE ZOO
15 CORPORATION, a California non-profit
public benefit corporation; ROEDING PARK
16 PLAYLAND, a California non-profit
corporation; FRESNO STORYLAND, a
California non-profit corporation; and HARRIS
18 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CO., INC., a
This case concerns the planned expansion of the Fresno Chafee Zoo, located in Roeding Park,
22 within the City of Fresno. Scheduled for oral argument on April 9, 2012 are motions to dismiss filed by
23 (1) Defendant City of Fresno, Doc. 62, and (2) Defendant Fresno’s Chaffee Zoo Corporation, Doc. 63.
Under Local Rule 230(c), Plaintiffs’ oppositions to these motions were due no less than fourteen days
before the April 9 hearing date, so no later than March 26, 2012. Furthermore, under Rule 230(c), “[a]
responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to
28 that effect, specifically designating the motion in question” and “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in
opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that
Plaintiffs failed to file any oppositions or statements of non-opposition to the above-referenced
motions. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to be heard at the April 9 hearing.1 Plaintiffs previously
failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss for
insufficient service of process. See Doc. 60. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the local rules may
warrant dismissal with prejudice. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs are
therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this Court should not dismiss this action in its entirety.
10 Plaintiffs are to submit a brief establishing cause to this Court no later than Friday, March 30, 2012.
Failure to file the required brief will result in dismissal, without further notice, of Plaintiffs’ action in its
entirety and with prejudice.
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
March 27, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A similar order to show cause was filed on October 19, 2011, but discharged on November 1, 2011 upon Counsel’s
explanation that he was unable to timely file opposition to two motions to dismiss due to a death in the family. See Docs. 28,
29 & 31.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?