Marchant v. PNC Bank, N.A.
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 1/13/2017 ORDERING the 5 Motion to Dismiss CONTINUED to 2/15/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writin g by 2/1/2017 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non opposition no later than 2/1/2017. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before 2/8/2017. (Washington, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WALTER G. MARCHANT,
No. 2:16-cv-2963-TLN-EFB PS
ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, a business entity, et al.,
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), and noticed their motion for hearing on January 25, 2017. ECF No. 5. Court
records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the
Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of
non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later
than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by January 11, 2017.
Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o 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.”
Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by
default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the
Local Rules “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.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d
52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for
dismissal.”). Pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are
liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is continued to February
15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 1, 2017, why sanctions
should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to
the pending motion.
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than February 1, 2017.
4. 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 action be dismissed for lack of
prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before February 8,
DATED: January 13, 2017.
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?