The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morrison C. England, Jr. United States District Judge
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company's ("Defendant") Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19), which was filed on December 6, 2011. This matter was originally set for hearing on January 12, 2012. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to that Motion as required by Eastern District of California Local Rule 230(c), however, and this Court consequently vacated the January 12 hearing date and issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") to Plaintiff as to why this action should not be dismissed.
Plaintiff's counsel ("Counsel") filed a response to the OSC on January 13, 2012, and, on February 1, 2012, this Court issued an Order holding that Counsel's response was insufficient but declining to penalize Plaintiff for her Counsel's failures. Accordingly, the Court ordered Counsel to pay sanctions in the amount of $250, but rescheduled the hearing on Defendant's Motion before this Court to 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 23, 2012. The Court also made very clear that "[f]urther failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition in accordance with Eastern District of California Local Rules [would] result in dismissal of this action without further notice to the parties." Order, 2:5-8.
Counsel subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate the Court's Order and to continue the hearing date to the end of April. Counsel provided additional detail as to why he had not properly opposed Defendant's Motion prior to the original hearing date as well as information as to why Counsel was unable, before April, to properly address the Motion on behalf of his client. Upon review of Counsel's Motion to Vacate, the Court did vacate its entry of sanctions against Counsel and continued this matter for hearing on the Court's regular May 3, 2012, calendar.
Based on this new hearing date, Plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant's Motion was due on Thursday, April 19, 2012. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(c). Despite this Court's leniency with Plaintiff and her Counsel as described above, and despite the Court's clear warning in its February 1, 2012, Order, Plaintiff again failed to file any response to the Motion.
Accordingly, this action is now DISMISSED with prejudice. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED as moot.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...