IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 28, 2008
RICARDO C. GARZA, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF TULARE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE WRITTEN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS FROM AUGUST 4, 2008 TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008
Plaintiff Ricardo C. Garza, proceeding in pro per, has filed a Complaint against the City of Tulare and Does 1-50, asserting causes of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and race, age and sex discrimination in employment, and retaliation.
On April 23, 2008, Defendant City of Tulare filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, noticing the motion for hearing on June 23, 2008.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition within the time required by Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice. In an Order filed on June 13, 2008, the Court ruled: Plaintiff is advised that Rule 83-183(a), Local Rules of Practice, provides:
Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil ... Procedure and by these Local Rules. All obligations placed on 'counsel' by these Local Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal ... or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.
Plaintiff is ordered to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss within two weeks following service of this Order.
Failure to timely comply will result in the dismissal of this action for failure to comply with this Order and for failure to prosecute.
The hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss is continued from June 23, 2008 to Monday, August 4, 2008.
On June 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed an Opposition which states in its entirety:
Plaintiff opposes the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant and Plaintiff will be present in the Courtroom of the Honorable Judge Oliver W. Wanger to give the reasons to continue the Complaint. Plaintiff will be there [sic] on Monday, August 4, 2008.
In Defendant's reply brief to the motion to dismiss, Defendant characterizes Plaintiff's June 25, 2008 opposition as effectively a non-opposition and requests that the Court deem Plaintiff's failure to substantively respond to the motion to dismiss a waiver and grant the motion on that basis. Defendant 2 further moves for the imposition of monetary sanctions against 3 Plaintiff. 4 Sanctions, either monetary or terminating, will not be 5 imposed on Plaintiff at this juncture. 6 Plaintiff is ordered to file a written opposition to the 7 motion to dismiss if he intends to oppose the motion, addressing 8 substantively each of the grounds for dismissal asserted in the 9 motion to dismiss and providing legal authority and analysis in support of Plaintiff's contentions why the motion to dismiss on the grounds asserted by Defendant should not be granted. Unless and until Plaintiff does this, neither Defendant nor the Court can be prepared for oral argument and resolution of the motion to dismiss. Under Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice, a party who fails to file an opposition has no right to be heard at oral argument.
Plaintiff shall file a written opposition in accordance with this Order on or before Monday, August 18, 2008. Failure to timely and fully comply with this Order will result in the motion being heard on the merits and/or dismissal of this action.
The hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued from August 4, 2008 to Monday, October 20, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. No continuance sought by Plaintiff will be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.