Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03358/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03358-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAINT CHARLES THURMAN;

GWEN THURMAN; 

No. CIV S-09-3358 JAM EFB PS

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN;

UNITED HOME MORTGAGE; 

BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL ESTATE 

CORPORATION dba HOMEQ SERVICING; 

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; QUALITY 

LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION, and

DOES 1 through 10,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

_________________________________/

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

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

2, 2009, defendants Barclay Capital Real Estate Corporation dba Homeq Servicing and Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A., removed this action from Solano County Superior Court based on federal

question jurisdiction. Dckt. No. 1. On December 15, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss

plaintiffs’ complaint, and noticed the motion for hearing on January 20, 2010. Dckt. No. 5. 

Court records reflect that plaintiffs have filed neither an opposition nor a statement of

non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a

Case 2:09-cv-03358-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

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 January 6, 2010. 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 ground for dismissal,

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. 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). 

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss is continued to February 24, 2010, at

10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 24.

2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 10, 2010, why sanctions

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

the pending motion.

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

thereto, no later than February 10, 2010. 

4. Failure of plaintiffs to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition

to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack

of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

////

Case 2:09-cv-03358-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before February 17,

2010. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 13, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03358-JAM-EFB Document 8 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 3