Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02667/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02667-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service

---

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 

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTION, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LUIS ALONSO CABRERA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2667-JAM-EFB PS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and noticed the motion for hearing on April 

27, 2016.1 ECF Nos. 28, 31. 

 Court records reflect that defendants have not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion for summary judgment. 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 April 13, 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.” 

///// 

 1

 This case, in which defendants are proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:14-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 33 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 4
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

 Additionally, Local Rule 260(b) provides that “[a]ny party opposing a motion for 

summary judgment or summary adjudication shall reproduce the itemized facts in the Statement 

of Undisputed Facts and admit those facts that are undisputed and deny those that are disputed, 

including with each denial a citation to the particular portions of any pleading, affidavit, 

deposition, interrogatory answer, admission, or other document relied upon in support of that 

denial.” Local Rule 260(b) further provides that “[t]he opposing party may also file a concise 

‘Statement of Disputed Facts,’ and the source thereof in the record, of all additional material facts 

as to which there is a genuine issue precluding summary judgment or adjudication,” and that 

“[t]he opposing party shall be responsible for the filing of all evidentiary documents cited in the 

opposing papers.” 

 Finally, 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 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). 

 Because defendants have failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, as required by Local Rule 230, and have failed to 

respond to plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts, as required by Local Rule 260, the hearing on 

plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be continued. Defendants are ordered to show 

cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement 

of non-opposition to the pending motion and for failure to timely file a response to plaintiff’s 

statement of undisputed facts. Defendants are also ordered to file an opposition to the motion or a 

statement of non-opposition thereto and a response to plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts. 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 33 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment be granted. 

 The court informs defendants of the following with respect to opposing a motion for 

summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: Such a motion is a request that the 

court grant judgment in plaintiff’s favor without trial. A motion for summary judgment will set 

forth the facts that plaintiff asserts are not reasonably subject to dispute and that entitle it to 

judgment under applicable law. To oppose a motion for summary judgment, defendants may file 

one or more affidavits or declarations setting forth the material facts that defendants believe are 

subject to reasonable dispute, as long as the person who signs it has personal knowledge of the 

facts stated. Defendants may rely on written records, but he must prove they are what defendants 

assert them to be. Defendants may rely on all or any part of responses to discovery propounded 

in this case, i.e., answers to interrogatories, admissions and deposition transcripts. If defendants 

fail to contradict plaintiff’s evidence with counter-affidavits or other admissible evidence, the 

court may accept plaintiff’s evidence as true and grant the motion. If there is good reason why 

such facts are not available to defendants when they are required to oppose a motion for summary 

judgment, the court will consider a request to postpone considering the motion. If defendants do 

not file a written opposition to the motion or a request to postpone consideration of it, the court 

may consider the failure to act as a waiver of opposition to the plaintiff’s motion. If the court 

grants plaintiff’s motion, whether opposed or unopposed, judgment will be entered for plaintiff 

without a trial and the case will be closed. 

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

 1. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 28, 31) is 

continued to June 1, 2016. 

 2. Defendants shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 18, 2016, why sanctions 

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

the pending motion. 

 3. Defendants shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition 

thereto, no later than May 18, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 33 Filed 04/21/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 4. Failure of defendants to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of 

non-opposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that plaintiff’s motion be granted. 

 5. Plaintiff may file a reply to defendant’s opposition, if any, on or before May 25, 2016. 

 6. Plaintiff’s request for a telephonic appearance at the April 27, 2016 hearing is denied 

as moot. 

DATED: April 21, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02667-JAM-EFB Document 33 Filed 04/21/16 Page 4 of 4