IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 21, 2012
GEORGE BARRAGAN PLAINTIFF,
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
This action, originally filed on February 27, 2012, was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has paid the filing fee and is proceeding pro se.
On July 19, 2012, defendant Fidelity National Title Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, noticed for hearing on August 30, 2012. (Dkt. No. 5.) Pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c), plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the hearing date, i.e. by August 16, 2012. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.
Although the court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se litigants, they are required to adhere to the rules of court. Failure to obey local rules may not only result in dismissal of the action, but "no party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if opposition has not been timely filed by that party." E. D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). More broadly, 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." E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (requiring compliance with the Local and Federal Rules by pro se litigants).
Having reviewed the record, the court has determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance in determining the pending motion. Therefore, the court will not entertain oral argument, and will determine the motion on the record, including the briefing as it presently exists in support of the pending motion. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). If the court subsequently determines that oral argument may be necessary, it will set a hearing at such time.
Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The August 30, 2012 hearing on defendant Fidelity's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 5) is VACATED.
2. Defendant Fidelity's motion to dismiss is SUBMITTED on the record without oral argument, with a written order and/or findings and recommendations to follow.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.