Marchant v. PNC Bank, N.A.

Filing 8

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WALTER G. MARCHANT,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2963-TLN-EFB PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, a business entity, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

19

Procedure 12(b)(6), and noticed their motion for hearing on January 25, 2017. ECF No. 5. Court

20

records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the

21

motion.

22

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

23

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

24

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by January 11, 2017.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 5) is continued to February

9

15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.

10

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 1, 2017, why sanctions

11

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

12

the pending motion.

13
14

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than February 1, 2017.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

R. Civ. P. 41(b).

19

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before February 8,

20

2017.

21

DATED: January 13, 2017.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2