ECI Financial Corp. v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/07/10 ORDERING 5 Motion to Dismiss hearing continued. Motion Hearing re-set for 11/8/2010 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. Plaintiff and its counsel are hereby ordered to show cause in a filed response to this OSC on or before October 25, 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. The written response to this OSC shall state whether Plaintiff or its counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC. If a hearing is requested, it will be held on November 8, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m.(Williams, D)

ECI Financial Corp. v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

Doc. 7

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 On September 8, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement and/or motion seeking to strike portions of the Complaint. (Docket No. 5.) The motion is noticed for hearing on October 12, 2010. Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or statement of nonv. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants. ________________________________ ECI FINANCIAL CORP., a California Corporation, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-02363-GEB-GGH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND/OR TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE COMPLAINT

opposition to Defendant's motion in compliance with Local Rule 230(c). Since Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, the motion is

rescheduled for hearing on November 8, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion as required by Local Rule 230(c). Further, Plaintiff and its counsel are hereby ordered to show cause ("OSC") in a filed response to this OSC on or before October 25, 2010, in which they explain why sanctions should not be issued under

1
Dockets.Justia.com

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

Local Rule 110 because of Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff is 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 also shall state whether Plaintiff or its counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is requested, it will be held on November 8, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Dated: October 7, 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