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.

Sadoma v. Bank of America

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


August 23, 2010

KONSTANTIN SADOMA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 16, 2010, defendants Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively "defendants") moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.) Defendants noticed the motion for hearing on September 2, 2010. (Id.)

Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by August 19, 2010. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party."

Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with 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." See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."). Pro selitigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss is continued to September 30, 2010;

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than September 16, 2010.

3. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and may result in an adverse ruling, including but not limited to a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

4. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before September 23, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100823

© 1992-2010 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.