Lepp et al v. Yuba County et al

Filing 33

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 09/28/17 ORDERING that the hearing on the following motions is RESET to 11/22/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan: Motions for Injunctive Relief, 11 and 12 21 Motion to Set Aside Default, 23 Amended Motion to Dismiss, 24 Motion to Dismiss, 26 Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, by 11/08/17. Failure to file an opposition to the motion w ill 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. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs' oppositions, if any, by 11/15/17. (Benson, A.) Modified on 9/29/2017 (Cannarozzi, N).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REVEREND HEIDI LEPP, et al.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1317-GEB-EFB PS

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

YUBA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Defendants the County of Yuba, Jeremy Strang, Lori Ajax, and Michael Vroman have

18

moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6).

19

ECF Nos. 23, 24, 26. Defendant Vroman also moves to strike all unrepresented plaintiffs

20

pursuant to Rule 12(f) (ECF No. 26), and defendant Chris Monaco moves to set aside the entry of

21

his default (ECF No. 21). These motions, as well as plaintiffs’ motions for injunctive relief, are

22

currently set for hearing on October 4, 2017. Court records reflect, however, that plaintiffs have

23

not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions.

24

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

25

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

26

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by September 20, 2017.

27

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

28

motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.”
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

1. The hearing on defendant Monaco’s motion to set aside default (ECF No. 21),

11

defendants Yuba County, Strang, Ajax, and Vroman’s motions to dismiss, (ECF No. 23, 24, 26),

12

Vroman’s motion to strike (ECF No. 26), and plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF No.

13

11, 12) is continued to November 22, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.

14

2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than November 8, 2017, why sanctions

15

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

16

the pending motion.

17
18

3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition
thereto, no later than November 8, 2017.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

R. Civ. P. 41(b).

23

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ oppositions, if any, on or before November

24

15, 2017.

25

DATED: September 28, 2017.

26
27
28
2