Drake v. Niello Company et al

Filing 90

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/20/2017 ORDERING the 83 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings hearing CONTINUED to 8/9/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. P laintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, no later than 7/26/2017, 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 7/26/2017. Defendants reply, if any, due on or before 8/2/2017.(Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

E. DRAKE,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:17-cv-1036-JAM-EFB PS
Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

THE NIELLO COMPANY, NIELLO
IMPORTS OF ROCKLIN, INC., NIELLO
PERFORMANCE MOTORS INC.,
NIELLO MOTOR CAR COMPANY,
AND SHIPPING EXPERTS INC.,
Defendants.

18
19

On May 24, 2017, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to

20

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and noticed the motion for hearing on June 28, 2017. ECF

21

No. 83. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-

22

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 June 14, 2017.

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 defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 83) is

10

continued to August 9, 2017.

11

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 26, 2017, why sanctions should

12

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

13

pending motion.

14
15

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than July 26, 2017.

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. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before August 2,

21

2017.

22

DATED: June 20, 2017.

23
24
25
26
27
28
2