Crawford v. Cave et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 07/05/2011 VACATING 07/14/2011 hearing on dfts' Motions to Dismiss, Motion Hearing CONTINUED to 09/08/2011 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 26 before Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 08/25/2011 CONTINUED to 12/08/2011 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 26 before Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds. Opposition to any of the motions to dismiss due within 30 days. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

AUBREY CRAWFORD,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

vs.
WILLIAM CAVE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

16
17

No. CIV 2:11-cv-0852-GEB-JFM (PS)

On April 6, 2011, defendants Dennis Gilmore and First American Loanstart

18

Trustee Services filed a motion to dismiss. On April 18, 2011, defendants William Cave and US

19

Bank National Association filed a motion to dismiss. Finally, on May 2, 2011, defendants Mark

20

Oman and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. filed a motion to dismiss. All three motions are scheduled to

21

be heard on July 14, 2011. No opposition to the motions to dismiss has been filed.

22

Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: “Failure of the responding party to file written

23

opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to

24

the granting of the motion . . . .” On June 8, 2011, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for

25

filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a

26

waiver of opposition to the motion.
1

1

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be

2

grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

3

inherent power of the Court.” In the order filed June 8, 2011, plaintiff was advised that failure to

4

comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

5

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The hearing date of July 14, 2011 is vacated. Hearing on defendants’ motions

7
8
9

to dismiss is continued to September 8, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.
2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motions to dismiss, within thirty
days of the date of this order. Failure to file an opposition will be deemed as a statement of non-

10

opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal

11

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

12

3. The initial scheduling conference currently set for August 25, 2011 is hereby

13

continued to December 8, 2011.

14

DATED: July 5, 2011.

15
16
17
18

/014;craw0852.46.osc

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2