Carter et al v. Central Pacific Mortgage Company et al

Filing 15

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 09/29/10 ORDERING that the hearing on the 8 Motion to Dismiss is SET for 10/25/10 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. and ORDERING that plfs and their counsel are to SHOW CAUSE by 10/08/10 why sanctions should not be issued for failure to file a timely Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (Benson, A.)

Carter et al v. Central Pacific Mortgage Company et al

Doc. 15

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

ROBERT CARTER, individually by and through his GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MILDRED CARTER, and on behalf of the General Public of the State of California, MILDRED CARTER, individually and on behalf of the General Public of the State of California, Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL PACIFIC MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., a corporation; BANK OF AMERICA, INC., a corporation; TRAVIS CHATMAN, an individual; TISHA TAYLOR, an individual; TM REALTY, INC., a corporation and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants. ________________________________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:10-cv-01246-GEB-EFB ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA'S MOTION TO DISMISS

On August 13, 2010, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America"), which states it was sued erroneously as Bank of America Inc., filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. The motion was noticed for hearing on September 27, 2010 but was submitted on September 23, 2010 since Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of nonopposition in compliance with Local Rule 230(c). However, since

considerable issues are raised in the dismissal motion, the motion is rescheduled for hearing on October 25, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion as required by Local Rule 230(c). Further, Plaintiffs and their counsel are hereby ordered to show cause ("OSC") in a filed response to this OSC on or before October 8, 2010, in which they explain why sanctions should not be issued under Local Rule 110 because of Plaintiffs' failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss, which was previously scheduled for hearing on September 27, 2010. Plaintiffs are warned that a sanction could include a monetary sanction and/or

dismissal of this case or claims with prejudice. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating "[f]ailure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.") The written response to this OSC shall also state whether Plaintiffs or their counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on October 25, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Dated: September 29, 2010

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

"If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged." Matter of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the "faults . . . of the attorney may be imputed to, and their consequences visited upon, [the attorney's] client." In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985). 2

1