Barragan v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 8/21/2012 VACATING the Motion Hearing as to 5 Motion to Dismiss set for 8/30/2012; SUBMITTING 5 Motion to Dismiss on the record, without oral argument. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GEORGE BARRAGAN

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-0498 LKK GGH PS

vs.

13
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK et al.
14
15

Defendants.

16

__________________________________/

17

ORDER

This action, originally filed on February 27, 2012, was referred to the undersigned

18

by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has paid the filing fee

19

and is proceeding pro se.

20

On July 19, 2012, defendant Fidelity National Title Company filed a motion to

21

dismiss the complaint, noticed for hearing on August 30, 2012. (Dkt. No. 5.) Pursuant to E.D.

22

Cal. L.R. 230(c), plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

23

the motion not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the hearing date, i.e. by August 16, 2012.

24

Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.

25
26

Although the court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants, they are
required to adhere to the rules of court. Failure to obey local rules may not only result in
1

1

dismissal of the action, but “no party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral

2

arguments if opposition has not been timely filed by that party.” E. D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). More

3

broadly, failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition . . . of any and

4

all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal.

5

L.R. 110; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (requiring compliance with the Local and Federal Rules by

6

pro se litigants).

7

Having reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral argument would

8

not be of material assistance in determining the pending motion. Therefore, the court will not

9

entertain oral argument, and will determine the motion on the record, including the briefing as it

10

presently exists in support of the pending motion. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). If the court

11

subsequently determines that oral argument may be necessary, it will set a hearing at such time.

12

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The August 30, 2012 hearing on defendant Fidelity’s motion to dismiss (dkt.

14
15

no. 5) is VACATED.
2. Defendant Fidelity’s motion to dismiss is SUBMITTED on the record without

16

oral argument, with a written order and/or findings and recommendations to follow.

17

DATED: August 21, 2012

18
19

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2