AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

Defendant Carlena Tapella has moved to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (ECF No. 6) and to strike plaintiff's complaint under California's Anti-SLAPP statute (ECF No. 7).1 Both motions were noticed for hearing on November 28, 2018. ECF Nos. 6, 7.

Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending 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 November 14, 2019. 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 Tapella's motions (ECF Nos. 6, 7) is continued to February 13, 2019.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than January 23, 2019, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motions.

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than January 23, 2019.

4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition to the motions will be deemed a statement of non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that defendant's motions be granted and/or the case dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

5. Defendant Tapella may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before January 7, 2019.