Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02342/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02342-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GERALD T. BROWN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-2342-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Defendants moved to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) and noticed their motions for hearing on January 13, 2016. ECF Nos. 5, 6. Court 

records reflect that plaintiffs have not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 

motions. 

Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion, or a statement of 

non-opposition thereto, must be served upon the moving party, and filed with this court, no later 

than fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date or, in this instance, by December 30, 2015. 

Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a 

motion at oral arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” 

Local Rule 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, judgment by 

default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the 

Case 2:15-cv-02342-TLN-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

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.” See also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 

52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for 

dismissal.”). 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). 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing on defendants’ motion for dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 6) is continued to 

February 3, 2016. 

 2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than January 20, 2016, why sanctions 

should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 

the pending motions. 

 3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition 

thereto, no later than January 20, 2016. 

 4. Failure of to file an opposition to the motions will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this this action be dismissed for lack 

of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ oppositions, if any, on or before January 27, 

2016. 

 6. Defendant PNC Bank, N.A.’s request to appear telephonically at the January 13, 2016 

hearing is denied as moot. 

DATED: January 5, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-02342-TLN-EFB Document 12 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 2