Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Franklin v. County of Placer, 2:17-cv-2277-JAM-EFB PS. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180913e87 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendants North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Todd Conradson, and Scott Sedgwick have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6), to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), and for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). ECF No. 45. Defendants County of Placer, Edward Bonner, Christopher Cattran, William Doyle, Maria Leftwich, Shane Mathias, Paul Nicholas, Ronald Scott Owen
More

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Todd Conradson, and Scott Sedgwick have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6), to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f), and for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). ECF No. 45. Defendants County of Placer, Edward Bonner, Christopher Cattran, William Doyle, Maria Leftwich, Shane Mathias, Paul Nicholas, Ronald Scott Owens, and Jeffrey Winkler have also moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). ECF No. 47. The motions are currently set for hearing on September 19, 2018. ECF Nos. 45, 47.

Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an oppositions or statements of non-opposition to the motions. 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 September 5, 2018. 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' motions (ECF Nos. 45, 47) is continued to October 31, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 17, 2018, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to defendants' motions.

3. Plaintiff shall file oppositions to the motions, or statements of non-opposition thereto, no later than October 17, 2018.

4. Failure to file oppositions to the motions will be deemed as 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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's oppositions, if any, on or before October 24, 2018.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer