Mecklenberg v. Del Rio et al
ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/10/2018 ORDERING the hearing on defendant's 38 motion to set aside default and plaintiff's 40 motion for default judgment is CONTINUED to 5/16/2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 5/2/2018, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant's motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 5/2/2018. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 5/9/2018. (Zignago, K.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:13-cv-149-JAM-EFB PS
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
PLACERVILLE BREWING COMPANY,
LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; and Does 1-10,
On January 5, 2018, defendant Placerville Brewing Company, LLC filed a motion to set
aside the clerk’s entry of its default, which is currently noticed for hearing on April 11, 2018.
ECF Nos. 38, 50. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of
non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 1
Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of
non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later
than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by March 28, 2018.
Plaintiff has moved for default judgment against defendant, which is set for hearing on
the same date. ECF Nos. 40, 50. Defendant timely filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. ECF
Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a
motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.”
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 grounds for dismissal, judgment by
default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the
Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by
statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d
52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for
dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are
liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to set aside default and plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment is continued to May 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 2, 2018, why sanctions should
not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant’s motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than May 2, 2018.
4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-
opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of
prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before May 9, 2018.
DATED: April 10, 2018.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?