Rosene et al v. American Brokers Conduit et al

Filing 11

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/04/12 ORDERING that the hearing on Placer Title's 9 Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED to 04/25/12 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE by 04/11/12 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition by 04/11/12. Placer Title Company may file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition by 04/18/12. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DONALD G. ROSENE;
SHAUN L. ROSENE,

11
Plaintiffs,

No. CIV S-12-107 KJM EFB PS

12
vs.
13
14
15
16

AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT;
PLACER TITLE COMPANY;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.;
DEFAULT RESOLUTIONS NETWORK;
POWER DEFAULT SERVICES, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 520, inclusive,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

17
Defendants.
/

18
19

This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to

20

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 2,

21

2012, defendant Placer Title Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint and noticed

22

the motion to be heard on April 11, 2012.1 Dckt. No. 9.

23
24
25
26

1

Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and Power Default Services,
Inc. previously filed a motion to dismiss and noticed the motion for hearing on March 14, 2012.
Dckt. Nos. 5, 7. However, because plaintiffs failed to file an opposition to that motion, the hearing
was continued to April 25, 2012, and plaintiffs were ordered to show cause why they should not be
sanctioned for failing to file an opposition. Dckt. No. 10.
1

1

Court records reflect that plaintiffs have filed neither an opposition nor a statement of

2

non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the

3

granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving

4

party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or,

5

in this instance, by March 28, 2012. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be

6

entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has

7

not been timely filed by that party.”

8
9

Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be ground for dismissal,

10

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to

11

comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

12

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also

13

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules

14

is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even

15

though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

16

Cir. 1987).

17

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. The hearing on Placer Title Company’s motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 9, is continued to

19
20

April 25, 2012.
2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than April 11, 2012, why sanctions

21

should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

22

the pending motion.

23
24

3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition
thereto, no later than April 11, 2012.

25

4. Failure of plaintiffs to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition

26

to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack
2

1

of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

3
4

5. Placer Title Company may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition on or before April 18,
2012.

5

SO ORDERED.

6

DATED: April 4, 2012.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3