The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: The Honorable Jay C. Gandhi, United States Magistrate Judge
Beatriz Martinez None Appearing Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Appearing None Appearing Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
On November 17, 2010, Defendants filed and served a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). [Dkt. No. 27.] By its Order dated November 19, 2010 [Docket No. 28], the Court gave Plaintiffs until December 17, 2010 to file an Opposition.
To date, Plaintiffs have not filed an Opposition. The failure to file an Opposition within the deadline set by the Court may be deemed Plaintiffs' consent to granting the Motion to Dismiss. L.R. 7-12.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT on or before January 12, 2011, Plaintiffs shall file a Response to this Order showing good cause, if any exists, why they failed to timely file an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and why Defendants should not be dismissed based on Plaintiffs' failure to file an Opposition. See L.R. 7-12; Ghazali v., 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of pro se prisoner's action for failure to file opposition to motion to dismiss); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court's order).
Plaintiffs shall support any attempt to show good cause with a declaration under penalty of perjury, accompanied by an Opposition that (a) states whether Plaintiffs admit or deny each allegation of fact contained in the Motion to Dismiss; and (b) is limited to facts or contentions responsive to matters raised in the Motion to Dismiss.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. SA CV 09-1149 JST (JCG)
Diana Rodriguez, et al.,
California Attorney General's ...