IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 12, 2010
JAMESY K. DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
RUBEN MARTINEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
On July 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). By order filed December 2, 2009, plaintiff was granted thirty days from the date of the order to file and serve an opposition to the motion. The thirty day period has expired and plaintiff has neither filed an opposition to the motion nor responded in any way to the court's order.
Local Rule 230(l) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion . . . ." On March 11, 2009, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.
Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." In the order filed March 11, 2009, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.