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.

Robin Gail v. Plumas County et al.

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


August 24, 2012

ROBIN GAIL TAMORI-HOLMES PLAINTIFF,
v.
PLUMAS COUNTY ET AL. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This action, a "Petition fo Writ of Administrative Mandamus, Judicial Review under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5" filed by plaintiff in Plumas County Superior Court, was removed to this court by defendants United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Justice, and United States Department of Defense (the "federal defendants") on July 27, 2012 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2). (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the action was thus referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On August 3, 2012, the federal defendants filed a motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), noticed for hearing on September 6, 2012. (Dkt. No. 4.) Subsequently, on August 7, 2012, defendant Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, California Department of Industrial Relations filed a motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), also noticed for hearing on September 6, 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 motions not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the hearing date, i.e. by August 23, 2012. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to either motion.

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 motions. 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 September 6, 2012 hearing on the motions to dismiss (dkt. nos. 4, 5) is VACATED.

2. These motions are SUBMITTED on the record without oral argument, with a written order and/or findings and recommendations to follow.

20120824

© 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.