IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 29, 2011
ARIEL BALTHROPE, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 14, 2011 and July 18, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). No opposition to the motions to dismiss has been filed.
Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that "[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party." In addition, Local Rule 230(i) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, 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."
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The hearing date of October 6, 2011 is vacated. Hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss is continued to November 10, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.
2. Plaintiff shall file opposition, if any, to the motions to dismiss, no later than October 27, 2011. Failure to file opposition and appear at the hearing will be deemed as a statement of non-opposition and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.