Lizama, et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/25/13: Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MICHAEL LIZAMA and MARIANNE
LIZAMA,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:13-cv-1415 LKK DAD PS

ORDER

v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiffs Michael Lizama and Marianne Lizama are proceeding pro se in this

19

action. The action has therefore been referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule

20

302(c)(21) for all purposes encompassed by that rule.

21

This matter came before the court on September 20, 2013, for hearing of

22

defendants’ motions to dismiss. Kimberly Paese, Esq. and Connie Tcheng, Esq. appeared for the

23

defendants. Despite being served with notice of the motion neither plaintiff filed written

24

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motions to dismiss and neither plaintiff

25

appeared at the hearing of the motion, nor did anyone appear on behalf of either plaintiff.

26

Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the

27

Eastern District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion “shall be in writing

28

and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued)
1

1

hearing date.” Local Rule 230(c). “No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a

2

motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Id.

3

Failure to appear at the hearing of a properly noticed motion may be deemed withdrawal of any

4

written opposition that was timely filed, in the discretion of the court, or may result in the

5

imposition of sanctions. Local Rule 230(i). Failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or

6

any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions

7

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any

8

individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of

9

Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply

10

with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate

11

under the Local Rules. Id.

12

Here, plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rule 230. In light of plaintiffs’

13

pro se status and in the interests of justice, the court will provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to

14

show good cause for their conduct along with a final opportunity to oppose defendants’ motions.

15

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiffs show cause in writing

16

within fourteen days of the date of this order why this case should not be dismissed for lack of

17

prosecution. Failure to timely file the required writing will result in a recommendation that this

18

case be dismissed.

19

Dated: September 25, 2013

20
21
22
23
24
25

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\lizama1415.osc.docx

26
27
28
2