Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01766/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01766-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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 

SUZANNE BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-1766 GEB GGH PS 

ORDER AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local 

Rule 302(c)(21). Defendant Wells Fargo Bank’s motion to dismiss is presently noticed for 

hearing on the October 6, 2016 law and motion calendar of the undersigned. Opposition to 

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). Court records reflect that plaintiff failed to file 

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).1 Pro se litigants are bound by 

 

1

 Moreover, failure to appear at hearing may be deemed withdrawal of opposition to a motion or 

may result in sanctions. E.D. Cal. L. R. 230(i). 

Case 2:16-cv-01766-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/27/16 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

the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in their favor. King v. 

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012); 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 October 6, 2016 is vacated.2 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 13, 2016 why sanctions 

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

pending motion. 

 3. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than October 13, 2016. Failure to file opposition 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. 

Dated: September 26, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/Brown1766.osc 

 

2

 If the court deems oral argument is needed, it will reschedule the hearing at a later date. 

Case 2:16-cv-01766-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/27/16 Page 2 of 2