ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

This action was removed to federal court on November 13, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) On November 25, 2013, some of the originally-named defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was set for hearing on January 30, 2014. (ECF No. 9.) After plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(c), the court continued the hearing on the motion to March 6, 2014, and provided plaintiff with an additional opportunity to file an opposition to the motion no later than February 13, 2014. (ECF No. 14.) In that order, the court carefully outlined the briefing requirements and deadlines imposed by Local Rule 230, and cautioned plaintiff that future failure to oppose defendants' motion may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Id.)

Thereafter, on January 23, 2014, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint, which only named defendant Flagstar Bank, FSB as a defendant. (ECF No. 15.) In an order dated February 4, 2014, the court explained that plaintiff's first amended complaint was untimely and unauthorized pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. (ECF No. 16.) Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, and in the interests of judicial economy (the first amended complaint dropped all defendants except Flagstar Bank, and asserted different and additional claims), the court retroactively granted plaintiff leave to file the first amended complaint and denied the then-pending motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot. (Id.) However, at the time, the court also specifically cautioned plaintiff that:

(Id.) (emphasis in original).

Subsequently, on March 4, 2014, remaining defendant Flagstar Bank filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was noticed for hearing on April 10, 2014. (ECF No. 19.) The court granted defendant's counsel permission to appear telephonically at the hearing in light of defendant's counsel's pregnancy and her present inability to travel from Los Angeles to Sacramento. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.)

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), plaintiff was required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss at least fourteen (14) days prior to the hearing, i.e. by March 27, 2014. Although that deadline has now passed, the court's records indicate that plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss in accordance with Local Rule 230(c).

Plaintiff did file a "notice of writ" on March 27, 2014, which essentially constitutes objections to the court permitting defendant's counsel to appear telephonically at the hearing. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff appears to suggest that a telephonic appearance by defendant's counsel would violate his due process, equal protection, and Sixth Amendment rights, because he would not be able to identify and cross-examine witnesses and parties at the hearing. (Id.) The court overrules plaintiff's objections, because the purpose of the hearing on the motion to dismiss is not to receive evidence or testimony, as would be done at a trial, but simply to hear arguments from the parties concerning the legal sufficiency of plaintiff's first amended complaint and the merits of defendant Flagstar Bank's motion to dismiss. Whether or not defendant's counsel is personally present, no direct or cross-examination of any party by another party would generally be permitted. Moreover, pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the court, in its discretion, may submit the motion on the briefing and record, and vacate the hearing entirely. As such, plaintiff's objections have no merit.

Even liberally construed, plaintiff's "notice of writ" does not constitute an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant Flagstar Bank's motion to dismiss, because it fails to address any of Flagstar Bank's substantive arguments. Thus, plaintiff has yet again violated Local Rule 230(c), despite the court's clear instructions in prior orders, which provided plaintiff with additional notice of that rule's requirements and specifically ordered plaintiff's compliance with them. In light of plaintiff's failure to comply with procedural rules and court orders, which has already resulted in significant delays to this case, the court considered whether the case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) at this juncture. However, because dismissal is a harsh sanction, and given plaintiff's pro se status and the court's desire to resolve the action on the merits, the court first attempts lesser monetary sanctions and grants plaintiff one final opportunity to oppose defendant Flagstar Bank's motion to dismiss, with a special briefing schedule as outlined below.

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.