Pascual, et al. v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/9/15 ORDERING that plaintiffs show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of this order as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to timely file the required writing will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
REGINALD PASCUAL and ANGELICA
No. 2:15-cv-0907 KJM DAD PS
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
INC., and NATIONAL DEFAULT
This matter came before the court on June 5, 2015, for hearing of defendants’ motion to
dismiss. Attorney Bao Vu appeared telephonically for the defendants. Despite being served with
notice of the motion neither plaintiff filed a written opposition nor did they file a statement of
non-opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Moreover, neither plaintiff appeared at the
hearing of the motion, nor did anyone appear on behalf of either plaintiff.
Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion “shall be in writing and shall
be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing
date.” Local Rule 230(c). “No 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.” Id. Failure to
appear at the hearing of a properly noticed motion may be deemed withdrawal of any written
opposition that was timely filed, in the discretion of the court, or may result in the imposition of
sanctions. Local Rule 230(i). Failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of
the court “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.” Local Rule 110. Any individual
representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with
applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the
Local Rules. Id.
Here, plaintiffs have failed to comply with Local Rule 230. In light of plaintiffs’ pro se
status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to show
good cause for their conduct along with a final opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion.
Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiffs show cause in writing within
fourteen days of the date of this order as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of
prosecution.1 Failure to timely file the required writing will result in a recommendation that this
case be dismissed.
Dated: June 9, 2015
Alternatively, if plaintiffs no longer wish to pursue this civil action they may comply with this
order by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil
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?