IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 4, 2012
DONALD G. ROSENE; SHAUN L. ROSENE, PLAINTIFFS,
AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT; PLACER TITLE COMPANY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; DEFAULT RESOLUTIONS NETWORK; POWER DEFAULT SERVICES, INC.; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 520, INCLUSIVE,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This case, in which plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, is before the
undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 2, 2012, defendant
Placer Title Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint
and noticed the motion to be heard on April 11, 2012.*fn1
Dckt. No. 9.
Court records reflect that plaintiffs have filed neither an opposition nor a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. 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 March 28, 2012. 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 se litigants 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 Placer Title Company's motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 9, is continued to April 25, 2012.
2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than April 11, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion.
3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than April 11, 2012.
4. Failure of plaintiffs to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court's Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
5. Placer Title Company may file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on or before April 18, 2012.