Cearley v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 45

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/20/2016 CONTINUING the hearing on 43 Motion to Dismiss to 8/24/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; ORDERING the plaintiff to show cau se, in writing, by 8/10/2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion; ORDERING the plaintiff to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 43 Motion to Dismiss by 8/10/2016; CAUTIONING the plaintiff that a 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 this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this courts Local Rules; ORDERING the defendant to file their reply by 8/17/2016. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD E. CEARLEY,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-353-MCE-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WELLS FARGO BANK
Defendant.

16
17

On June 13, 2016, defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a motion to dismiss this action

18

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and noticed the motion for hearing on July

19

27, 2016. ECF No. 43. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or

20

statement of non-opposition to the motion.

21

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

22

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

23

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by June 15, 2016.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 43) is continued to August 24,

8

2016.

9

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than August 10, 2016, why sanctions

10

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

11

the pending motion.

12
13

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than August 10, 2016.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before August 17,

19

2016.

20

DATED: July 20, 2016.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2