Cho et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 122

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 6/29/18: HEARING as to Motions to Dismiss 106 , 107 , 109 , 112 , 115 , 116 RESET for 8/1/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. Plaintiffs shall file any opposition to the pending motions to dismiss by July 18, 2018. Motion to compel discovery 117 is DENIED. Motion to utilize the electronic filing system 118 is DENIED. (Kaminski, H) Modified on 6/29/2018 (Streeter, J).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JUNG HYUN CHO, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:17-cv-01073-KJM-CKD (PS)

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Presently pending before the court are defendants’ motions to dismiss that are currently

19

set for hearing before the undersigned on July 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (ECF Nos. 106, 107, 109,

20

112, 115, 116.) Plaintiffs, who proceed pro se, have not yet filed any opposition to these motions.

21

However, plaintiffs have requested permission to utilize the court’s electronic filing system (ECF

22

No. 118) and they have attempted to file a motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 117).

23

According to Local Rule 230, “[o]pposition, if any, to the granting of [a] motion shall be

24

in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or

25

continued) hearing date.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). Therefore, plaintiffs were to provide any

26

opposition to the pending motions to dismiss by June 27, 2018. That deadline has passed and

27

plaintiffs have not provided any opposition. In light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, the court

28

postpones the hearing on these motions and grants plaintiffs an extension to file any opposition.
1

1
2

The court hereby resets the hearing for Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
As to plaintiffs’ pending motions, Local Rule 133 provides that “[a]ny person appearing

3

pro se may not utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or

4

Magistrate Judge. . . . All pro se parties shall file and serve paper documents as required by

5

applicable Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure or by these Rules.” E.D. Cal. L.R.

6

133(b)(2). Here, plaintiffs’ request to utilize the electronic filing system (ECF No. 118) does not

7

set forth a compelling reason why the court should deviate from the Local Rules and its standard

8

practice of disallowing the use of electronic filing by pro se litigants.

9

Local Rule 251 provides in part that a discovery motion “may be had by the filing and

10

service of a notice of motion and motion scheduling the hearing date on the appropriate calendar

11

at least twenty-one (21) days from the date of filing and service.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(a). Here,

12

plaintiffs failed to file and serve a notice of their motion to compel. Therefore, plaintiffs’ motion

13

to compel (ECF No. 117) is procedurally deficient.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. The hearing on defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 106, 107, 109, 112, 115,

16

116) set for July 11, 2018 is VACATED and RESET for August 1, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

17

in Courtroom 24 before the undersigned.

18

2. Plaintiffs shall file any opposition to the pending motions to dismiss by July 18, 2018.

19

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to utilize the electronic filing system (ECF No. 118) is DENIED.

20

4. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 117) is DENIED without prejudice.

21

Dated: June 29, 2018

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26

14/17-1073.Cho v. Select.Electronic Filing Order

27
28
2