Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03149/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-03149-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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 

ISABEL BEL MONTEZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF STOCKTON, a municipal 

corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:10-cv-3149-MCE-EFB 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On May 25, 2016, defendants moved to compel plaintiffs Isabel Bel Montez, minor I.G., 

and minor J.G. (“plaintiffs”) to provide responses to outstanding discovery requests and for 

sanctions based on plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the court’s February 16, 2016 order, which 

directed plaintiffs to provide responses to other discovery requests. ECF Nos. 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 

46. Defendants noticed the motions for hearing on June 22, 2016. Id. Pursuant to Local Rule 

251(e), plaintiffs were required to file an opposition to the motions not later than seven days 

before the hearing or, in this instance, by June 15, 2016. 

 The deadline has passed and plaintiffs have failed to file any response to defendants’ 

motions. 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.”). 

Case 2:10-cv-03149-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 06/16/16 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

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

 1. The hearing on defendants’ motions to compel (ECF No. 40, 41) and for sanctions 

(ECF Nos. 42, 44, 45, 46) is continued to June 29, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 

 2. Plaintiffs Isabel Bel Montez, I.G., and J.G. shall show cause, in writing, no later than 

June 22, 2016, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a 

statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motions. 

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

thereto, no later than June 22, 2016. 

 4. Failure to file an opposition to the motions will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in the granting of defendants’ motions and/or a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before June 24, 

2016. 

DATED: June 16, 2016. 

 

Case 2:10-cv-03149-MCE-EFB Document 47 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 2