Rusu-Carp v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/16/2011 ORDERING 5 Motion Hearing on motion to dismiss is CONTINUED to 10/27/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman; pltf's Opposition or a statement of non-opposition due by 9/29/2011; dft may file a written reply by 10/20/2011; Status Pretrial Scheduling Conference reset for 12/1/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LYUBOV RUSU-CARP, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:11-cv-01135 MCE KJN PS v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 14 Defendant. ORDER / 15 On August 16, 2011, defendant1 filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint 16 17 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).2 (Dkt. No. 5.) Defendant noticed its 18 motion to dismiss for a hearing to take place before the undersigned on September 29, 2011. 19 Pursuant to this court’s Local Rules, plaintiff was obligated to file and serve a written opposition 20 or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion at least fourteen days prior to the hearing 21 22 23 1 24 Defendant contends that although plaintiff named the Internal Revenue Service as the defendant in this action, the proper defendant is the United States of America. (See Memo. In Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 1-2 n.1, Dkt. No. 5, Doc. No. 5-1.) 25 2 26 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 1 date, or September 15, 2011. See E. Dist. Local Rule 230(c).3 The court’s docket reveals that 2 plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, failed to file a written opposition or statement of 3 non-opposition with respect to the motion to dismiss. 4 Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to 5 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 6 Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the 7 Court.” Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: 8 Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal . . . or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules. 9 10 11 12 See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 13 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Case law is in accord that a district court 14 may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or fails to 16 comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules.4 17 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua 18 19 3 20 Eastern District Local Rule 230(c) provides: (c) Opposition and Non-Opposition. Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question. No 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 party. . . . 21 22 23 24 4 25 26 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that under certain circumstances a district court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failing to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Trice v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 376 Fed. Appx. 789, 790 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 422 (2010). 2 1 sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. 2 Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action 3 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 4 or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 5 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground 6 for dismissal.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 7 Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an 8 action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); 9 Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) 10 (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose 11 sanctions including dismissal), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 829 (1986). 12 In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. 14 The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 5), which is presently set for September 29, 2011, is continued until October 27, 2011. 15 2. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition to the motion to dismiss, or a 16 statement of non-opposition thereto, on or before September 29, 2011. Plaintiff’s failure to file a 17 written opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and 18 plaintiff’s consent to the granting of the motion to dismiss, and shall constitute an additional 19 ground for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiff’s 20 case be involuntarily dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 21 3. Defendant may file a written reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or 22 before October 20, 2011. 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 3 1 4. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference presently set for 2 September 29, 2011, is continued to December 1, 2011. Defendant has already filed a status 3 report (Dkt. No. 6) and need not submit an additional status report in advance of the continued 4 scheduling conference. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 16, 2011 7 8 9 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4

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?