Nash v. Wachovia Bank et al

Filing 40

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/11/2016 ORDERING the Hearing on 38 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings is CONTINUED to 10/5/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Pla intiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 9/21/2016, 2016, 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 the motio n, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than 9/21/2016. Failure of to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 9/28/2016. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MAURICE R. NASH,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:14-cv-850-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WACHOVIA BANK, WELLS FARGO
BANK, EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SYSTEM LLC., and DOES 1-20,
inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

On July 8, 2016, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a motion for judgment on the

20

pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and noticed the motion for hearing

21

on August 17, 2016. ECF No. 38. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition

22

or statement of non-opposition to the motion.

23

Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of

24

non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later

25

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by August 3, 2016.

26

Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a

27

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

28

Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the
1

1

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by

2

default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the

3

Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by

4

statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d

5

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for

6

dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are

7

liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

8

Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:

9

1. The hearing on defendant’s motion for dismiss (ECF No. 38) is continued to October 5,

10

2016.

11

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than September 21, 2016, why sanctions

12

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

13

the pending motion.

14
15

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than September 21, 2016.

16

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

17

opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this this action be dismissed for lack

18

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

19

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

20

5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before September 28,

21

2016.

22

DATED: August 11, 2016.

23
24
25
26
27
28
2