Cearley v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 69

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/20/2017 ORDERING the 65 Motion to Dismiss hearing CONTINUED to 7/26/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall SH OW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 7/12/2017, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition due by 7/12/2017. Defendants reply, if any, due on or before 7/19/2017. (Donati, J)

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 AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WELLS FARGO BANK.
Defendant.

16
17

On May 9, 2017, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended

18

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

19

hearing on June 28, 2017. ECF No. 65. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an

20

opposition or 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 14, 2017.

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. 65) is continued to July 26,

8
9

2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 12, 2017, why sanctions should

10

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

11

pending motion.

12
13

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than July 12, 2017.

14

4. Failure 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 action be dismissed for lack of

16

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

17

R. Civ. P. 41(b).

18
19

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before July 19, 2017.
DATED: June 20, 2017.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2