Santos et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Filing 8

ORDER AND ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/26/11 ORDERING The hearing date of October 5, 2011 is vacated. Hearing on defendant's motion 6 is continued to November 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26; Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 19, 2011 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion timely; Plaintiffs are directed to file an oppositio n, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than October 19, 2011. Failure to file an opposition and appear at the hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of nonopposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed; and Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than October 26, 2011. (Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

EVE SANTOS & BRENDA
DISUASIDO,

9
Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. S-11-2086 LKK CKD PS

10
vs.
11
12
13

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant.
/

14
15

Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant

16

to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the

17

October 5, 2011 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to motions, or a

18

statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing

19

date. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Court records reflect that plaintiffs failed to timely file an

20

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

21

Failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the

22

Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the

23

Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally,

24

“[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written

25

opposition to the motion has not been timely filed.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Pro se litigants are

26

bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor.
1

1

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65

2

(9th Cir. 1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in propria

3

persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment

4

by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L.R. 183.

5

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1. The hearing date of October 5, 2011 is vacated. Hearing on defendant’s

7

motion is continued to November 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

8
9
10

2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 19, 2011 why
sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition
to the pending motion timely.

11

3. Plaintiffs are directed to file an opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement

12

of non-opposition thereto, no later than October 19, 2011. Failure to file an opposition and

13

appear at the hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-

14

opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

15

4. Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than October 26, 2011.

16

Dated: September 26, 2011

17

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20

5
Santos.2086.nop.con.wpd

21
22
23
24
25
26
2