IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 18, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
TERESA MARTY, DBA ADVANCED FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, DEFENDANT.
On May 26, 2009, this court ordered defendant to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed upon her for failing timely to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to plaintiff's pending motion for preliminary injunction, previously scheduled for hearing on June 3, 2009. Defendant timely filed and served a response on June 16, 2009, which notes defendant's lack of familiarity with the rules and apologizes for defendant's failure timely to respond to the pending motions. The court discharges the order to show cause filed May 26, 2009 and no sanctions shall be imposed. However, defendant is again admonished that she must become familiar with and comply with the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pro se litigants are bound by the local and federal rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Local Rule 83-183.
Defendant's opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to the pending motions -- now scheduled for hearing on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 -- must be served on plaintiff, and filed with the court, no later than July 1, 2009. Failure to comply with this or other order and/or 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." Local Rule 11-110; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.