Schneider v. Bank of America N.A et al

Filing 327

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/10/2017 ORDERING that the hearing on defendants' 321 motion for an order regarding plaintiff's motion for a new trial is CONTINUED to 5/3/2017. The Clerk shall serve plaintiff by mail with copies of defendants' 321 motion and the court's 3/13/2017 323 order to show cause. By no later than 4/24/2017, plaintiff shall file a response to the court's order to show cause and either an opposition or statement o f non-opposition to defendants' motion. Defendants may file a response to plaintiff's opposition, if any, by 4/28/2017. Defense counsel's 326 request to appear telephonically at the hearing on 4/12/2017 is DENIED as moot. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

No. 2:11-cv-2953-JAM-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BANK OF AMERICA N.A.; BANK OF
AMERICA MORTGAGE; BANK OF
AMERICA HOME LOANS SERVICING
LP; BALBOA INSURANCE COMPANY;
HOME RETENTION GROUP; QUALITY
LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION;
CLIFF COLER; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive,
Defendants.

20
21

On November 16, 2016, plaintiff was ordered to file within 30 days a notice of motion in

22

compliance with Local Rule 230 to properly calendar for hearing his motion for a new trial. ECF

23

No. 314. He failed to do so. Also in violation of Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff failed to timely file

24

an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion filed January 31, 2017. ECF

25

No. 321. Accordingly, plaintiff was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed

26

for his failure to comply with the court’s November 16, 2016 order and for violation of the Local

27

Rules. ECF No. 323. The deadline has passed and plaintiff has not noticed his motion for a new

28

trial for hearing or filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Nor
1

1

has plaintiff responded to the court’s order to show cause. However, a review of the docket

2

indicates that plaintiff was not properly served with a copy of defendants’ motion and the court’s

3

order to show cause since both documents were served electronically.

4

Plaintiff previously sought an order permitting him to file documents electronically. ECF

5

No. 109. That request was granted, but the order granting it also specifically directed that

6

because plaintiff had not consented to electronic service “the parties shall continue to serve

7

documents conventionally in accordance with Local Rules 135(b) and (e).” ECF No. 110 at 2,

8

n.2. Sometime thereafter, plaintiff retained counsel and all documents were then served

9

electronically. But following the trial of this action, his counsel withdrew and plaintiff was again

10

proceeding pro se. ECF Nos. 300 and 305. However, plaintiff continued to be served

11

electronically rather than by mail. This includes the service of defendants’ motion and the court’s

12

March 13, order to show cause.1 Accordingly, the hearing on defendants’ motion must be

13

continued to allow for service of these documents and to permit an opportunity for plaintiff to

14

respond to the motion and the court’s order to show cause.

15

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

16

1. The hearing on defendants’ motion for an order regarding plaintiff’s motion for a new

17

trial is continued to May 3, 2017.

18
19

2. The Clerk shall serve plaintiff by mail with copies of defendants’ motion (ECF No.
321) and the court’s March 13, 2017 order to show cause (ECF No. 323).

20
21

3. By no later than April 24, 2017, plaintiff shall file a response to the court’s order to
show cause and either an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion.

22

4. Defendants may file a response to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, by April 28, 2017.

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff also was not served by mail with the court’s November 16, 2016 order
directing him to notice for hearing his motion for a new trial. However, it is clear he had actual
notice of that order as he filed objections to it. ECF No. 315. Accordingly, this does not provide
a basis for discharging the order to show cause.
2

1

5. Defense counsel’s request to appear telephonically at the hearing on April 12, 2017

2

(ECF No. 326) is denied as moot.

3

DATED: April 10, 2017.

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
3