Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lamont Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 24, 2012

LAMONT JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant's motion to dismiss is presently noticed for hearing on the August 8, 2012law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). On July 23, 2012, plaintiff filed a document which he characterized as an "answer" to the motion to dismiss. It appears plaintiff is seeking an extension of time to file an amended complaint. The document belatedly filed by plaintiff in response to the motion to dismiss does not address the specific points raised by defendant in the moving papers. The court will therefore continue the hearing and afford plaintiff an opportunity to file a proper opposition. If plaintiff contends that the pleading deficiencies raised by defendant can be cured by amendment of the complaint, the opposition should include a proposed amended complaint.

Plaintiff is advised 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." E.D. Cal. L. R. 11-110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, "[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." E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(c). 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); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364-65 (9th Cir. 1986). The Local Rules specifically provide that cases of persons appearing in propria persona who fail to comply with the Federal and Local Rules are subject to dismissal, judgment by default, and other appropriate sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 183.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of August 8, 2012 is vacated. Hearing on defendant's motion is continued to September 12, 2012at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom no. 26.

2. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, no later than August 22, 2012. Failure to file opposition and appear at hearing, or to file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3. Reply, if any, shall be filed no later than August 29, 2012.

20120724

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.