Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00463/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00463-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

1

 On July 16, 2007, defendant CitiFinancial filed a notice that it had not received an

opposition to its motion. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC EDWARD BOWMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0463 RRB EFB PS

vs.

ASSOCIATES HOME EQUITY 

SERVICE, et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

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

Rule 72-302(c)(21). Defendant CitiFinancial Mortgage (“CitiFinancial”) filed a motion to

dismiss on May 21, 2007, and noticed it for hearing on the undersigned’s July 25, 2007, law and

motion calendar. Opposition to a motion, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, must be filed

fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. L. R. 78-230(c). Court records reflect that

plaintiff failed to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion.1

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.” 

L. R. 11-110; see Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, “[n]o party

Case 2:06-cv-00463-JAM-EFB Document 30 Filed 07/20/07 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

2

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

motion or may result in sanctions. L. R. 78-230(j). 

2

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral argument if written opposition to 

the motion has not been timely filed.” L. R. 78-230(c).2 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. L. R. 83-183. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing date of July 25, 2007, is continued to August 15, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in

Courtroom No. 25.

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than ten days from the date of this order

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

non-opposition to the pending motion.

3. Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition, if any, to the motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than ten days from the date of this order. Failure to file an

opposition, appear at hearing, or file a statement of non-opposition, will be deemed a statement

of non-opposition, and shall result in a recommendation that defendant’s motion be granted.

DATED: July 20, 2007. 

Case 2:06-cv-00463-JAM-EFB Document 30 Filed 07/20/07 Page 2 of 2