Martin v. American Automobile Association of Northern California Nevada and Utah et al

Filing 29

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/7/2016 CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 22 Motion to Dismiss to 10/12/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; ORDERING the plaintiff to s how cause, in writing, by 9/28/2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending 22 Motion to Dismiss; ORDERING the plaintiff to file an opposition to the 22 Motion to Dismiss, or statement of non-opposition thereto, by 9/28/2016; CAUTIONING the plaintiff that a failure to file an opposition to the pending 22 Motion to Dismiss will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules; ORDERING the defendant to file a reply by 10/5/2016. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RENEE L. MARTIN,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:15-cv-2496-TLN-EFB PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA NEVADA AND UTAH, et
al.,
Defendants.

18
19

On July 29, 2016, defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange filed a motion to dismiss this

20

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), and noticed the motion

21

for hearing on September 14, 2016. ECF No. 22. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed

22

an opposition 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 31, 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 to dismiss (ECF No. 22) is continued to October

10

12, 2016.

11

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than September 28, 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 28, 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 October 5,

21

2016.

22

DATED: September 7, 2016.

23
24
25
26
27
28
2