The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On December 22, 2010, defendants GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Executive Trustee
Services, LLC, and Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc. ("Removing
Defendants") removed plaintiff's case to federal court.*fn1
(Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) On December 29, 2010,
the Removing Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and noticed that
motion for a hearing before the undersigned to take place on February
3, 2011.*fn2 (Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 7.) Pursuant
to this court's Local Rules, plaintiff was obligated to file and serve
a written opposition or statement of non-opposition to the Removing
Defendants' motion at least fourteen days prior to the hearing date,
or January 20, 2011. See E. Dist. Local Rule 230(c).*fn3
The court's docket reveals that plaintiff, who is proceeding
without counsel, failed to file a written opposition or statement of
non-opposition with respect to the Removing Defendants' motion to
Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure 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." Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on "counsel" by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal . . . or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.
See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."). Case law is in accord that a district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff's case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case or fails to comply with the court's orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court's local rules.*fn4
See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court "may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute"); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court's orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) ("Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court."); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal).
In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The hearing on the Removing Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 7), which is presently set for February 3, 2011, is continued until March 3, 2011.
2. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition to the motion to dismiss, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, on or before February 3, 2011. Plaintiff's failure to file a written opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and consent to the granting of the motion to dismiss, and shall constitute an additional ground for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiff's case be involuntarily dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
3. The Removing Defendants may file a written reply to plaintiff's opposition, if any, on or before February 17, 2011.