Drake v. Niello Company et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:17-cv-1036-JAM-EFB PS
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.,
On May 24, 2017, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and noticed the motion for hearing on June 28, 2017. ECF
No. 83. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-
opposition to the motion.
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 June 14, 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 for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 83) is
continued to August 9, 2017.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 26, 2017, why sanctions should
not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the
3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto,
no later than July 26, 2017.
4. Failure of to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of non-
opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this 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 August 2,
DATED: June 20, 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?