Tavake v. Chase Bank

Filing 28

ORDER and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/18/2012 VACATING the Motion Hearing as to 21 , 27 Motions to Dismiss; SUBMITTING, on the record, 21 , 27 Motions to Dismiss; ORDERING Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE in writing, within 14 days, as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

TAMI TAVAKE, et al.,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:12-cv-0041 KJM GGH PS

vs.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND
/

15
16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant

17

to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Two motions to dismiss are presently noticed for hearing on the

18

September 27, 2012, law and motion calendar of the undersigned. One motion was filed by San

19

Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation on August 15, 2012, and the other

20

motion was filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and California Reconveyance Company on

21

August 16, 2012. Opposition to motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed

22

fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). Court records reflect

23

that plaintiffs failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

24

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

25

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

26

Court.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally,
1

1

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

2

opposition to the motion has not been timely filed.” E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c).1 Pro se litigants are

3

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

4

Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir.1986). The Local Rules specifically provide

5

that cases of persons appearing in propria persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local

6

Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L.

7

R. 183.

8
9

Furthermore, having reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral
argument would not be of material assistance in determining the pending motions. Accordingly,

10

the court will not entertain oral argument, and will determine the motions on the record,

11

including the briefing in support of the pending motions. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

12

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The hearing date of September 27, 2012 is vacated, and the motions to dismiss

14

(dkt. nos. 21, 27), are submitted on the record.

15

2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, within fourteen days of this order why

16

this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to comply with this order

17

shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

18

DATED: September 18, 2012

19

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
GGH:076:Tavake0041.osc.wpd

21
22
23
24
25
1

26

Moreover, failure to appear at hearing may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to a
motion or may result in sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(j).
2