Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ponthieux v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 2:18-cv-0608 JAM DB PS. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190513833 Visitors: 31
Filed: May 10, 2019
Latest Update: May 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH BARNES , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs, Keith J. Ponthieux, Chris Duenas, and Maria Duenas, are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 17, 2019, is defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 36.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiffs were to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defend
More

ORDER

Plaintiffs, Keith J. Ponthieux, Chris Duenas, and Maria Duenas, are proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 17, 2019, is defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 36.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiffs were to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion "not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date." Plaintiffs, however, have failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition.

The failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court "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." Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.

In light of plaintiffs' pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide plaintiffs with an opportunity to show good cause for plaintiffs' conduct along with a final opportunity to oppose defendant's motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution;

2. The May 17, 2019 hearing of defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 36) is continued to Friday, June 14, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned;

3. On or before May 31, 2019, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion1; and

4. Plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the recommendation that this case be dismissed.

FootNotes


1. Alternatively, if plaintiffs no longer wish to pursue this civil action, plaintiffs may comply with this order by filing a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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