Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Young v. Paul Financial

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 9, 2009

YVETTE YOUNG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PAUL FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 5, 2009, this court ordered plaintiff to show cause, on or before July 1, 2009, why sanctions should not be imposed due to plaintiff's failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants' pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was also directed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition no later than July 1, 2009. The hearing date of June 17, 2009 was continued to July 15, 2009, to permit plaintiff additional time to respond to the pending motion.

The July 1, 2009 deadline has expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court's order. It appears that plaintiff has abandoned this case.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order... " See also E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110 ("Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with 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"). Plaintiff's pro se status does not derogate this authority. "Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal 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, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules." E. D. Cal. L. R. 83-183.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 15, 2009 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 5, is vacated.

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the court's order as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L R. 11-110.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20090709

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.