Johnson et al v. Bank United FSB et al

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE and Continuing hearing on Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/10/10. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the Motion as required by Local Rule 230(c). Plaintiffs and their counsel are ORDERED to Show Cause in a filed response to this OSC on or before 12/6/2010, in which they explain why sanctions should not be issued because of Plaintiff's failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending Motion. The hearing on MOTION to DISMISS 4 is RESCHEDULED to 12/20/2010 at 09:00 AM. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Johnson et al v. Bank United FSB et al

Doc. 5

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 v. BANK UNITED F.S.B.; BANK UNITED; FREESTAND FINANCIAL and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. ________________________________ On October 12, 2010, Defendant Bank United filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint or, in the alternative, a motion for a more definite statement. (ECF No. 4.) The motion is noticed for hearing on November 22, 2010. Plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant's motion in compliance with Local Rule 230(c). Since Plaintiffs have not responded to the motion, the motion is rescheduled for hearing on December 20, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition 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 December 6, 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. Plaintiff is warned that a sanction could include a monetary sanction and/or dismissal of 1
Dockets.Justia.com

CAROLINA JOHNSON and CLAUDE COLWELL, Plaintiffs,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:10-cv-02567-GEB-KJM ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT BANK UNITED'S MOTION TO DISMISS

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

this case or claims with prejudice. 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 December 20, 2010, commencing at 9:00 a.m. Dated: November 10, 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