Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Mecklenberg v. Placerville Brewing Company, LLC, 2:13-cv-149-JAM-EFB PS. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180411778 Visitors: 21
Filed: Apr. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . On January 5, 2018, defendant Placerville Brewing Company, LLC filed a motion to set aside the clerk's entry of its default, which is currently noticed for hearing on April 11, 2018. ECF Nos. 38, 50. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion. 1 Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-oppositio
More

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On January 5, 2018, defendant Placerville Brewing Company, LLC filed a motion to set aside the clerk's entry of its default, which is currently noticed for hearing on April 11, 2018. ECF Nos. 38, 50. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion.1

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 March 28, 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 defendant's motion to set aside default and plaintiff's motion for default judgment is continued to May 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 2, 2018, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion.

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant's motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than May 2, 2018.

4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will 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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before May 9, 2018.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff has moved for default judgment against defendant, which is set for hearing on the same date. ECF Nos. 40, 50. Defendant timely filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion. ECF No. 51.
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