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.

Shelley Von Brincken v. Keith Royal

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


December 3, 2012

SHELLEY VON BRINCKEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEITH ROYAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants' motion to dismiss is presently set for hearing on December 12, 2012before the undersigned. Dkt. 4. 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). A review of the docket reveals that plaintiff has yet to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.

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. 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 December 12, 2012 is VACATED. Hearing on defendants' motion is continued to January 9, 2013 at 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 December 26, 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 January 2, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121203

© 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.