Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02537/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02537-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
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

STEVEN FOSTER STILES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREA MARIA CASANOVA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-02537-KJM-CKD (PS)

ORDER 

Plaintiff, who proceeds without counsel, initiated this action with a complaint filed on 

November 3, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21).

On December 12, 2023, Blaine Truman Lowry filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a motion to dismiss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) These motions are currently set for a hearing to take place on February 

7, 2024. (ECF Nos. 24, 25.)

On December 14, 2023, defendants Caroline Zapp Kahn, Jan Leslie Kahn, Kahn, Soars,

Conway LLP (erroneously sued as Kahn, Soars, Conway LLP), and Clark Mathew Stiles filed a 

motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

noticed the motion for a hearing to take place on February 7, 2024, before the undersigned. (ECF 

No. 26.)

Case 2:23-cv-02537-KJM-CKD Document 41 Filed 01/17/24 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

On December 22, 2023, defendants Amity Girt and the Law Office of Josh Lamborn P.C. 

filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(2). (ECF No. 36.) On December 27, 2023, the court advanced the hearing on this matter to 

take place on February 7, 2024. (ECF No. 37.)

Under the court’s Local Rules, plaintiff was to respond to each of the above-listed motions

no later than 14 days after the motion was filed. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c) (“Opposition, if any, to 

the granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen 

(14) days after the motion was filed.”). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to any of the pending 

motions listed above.

“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court

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. Local Rule 110. Local Rule 183(a) provides,

in relevant part:

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is 

bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing [without 

counsel]. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 

Rules.

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds).

A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case 

or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s 

local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may 

act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. 

U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts may dismiss an action pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply 

with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 

1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for 

Case 2:23-cv-02537-KJM-CKD Document 41 Filed 01/17/24 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

dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any 

order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 

1986) (per curiam) (district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose 

sanctions including dismissal or default).

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the pending motions is in violation of the Local Rules, but 

the undersigned does not recommend dismissal at this time. Instead, plaintiff is provided an

opportunity to respond to the pending motions within 14 days after service of this order. Any 

further failure to respond will be construed as plaintiff’s non-opposition to the motions and will 

constitute grounds for dismissal under Rule 41(b).

Local Rule 230(c) states “[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....” The 

hearings set for February 7, 2024, are vacated. After the conclusion of briefing, the motions will 

be submitted for decision on the record and written briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). If the 

court subsequently determines that supplemental briefing or oral argument is necessary, the 

parties will be notified accordingly.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The hearings on the defendants’ pending motions (ECF Nos. 20, 21, 26, 36), set 

for February 7, 2024, are VACATED.

2. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition (or a statement of non-opposition) to each 

pending motion within 14 days after service of this order. Failure to do so will be 

deemed a statement of non-opposition and consent to the granting of the motions

and may constitute an additional ground for the imposition of appropriate 

sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiff’s entire case be involuntarily 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

////

////

////

Case 2:23-cv-02537-KJM-CKD Document 41 Filed 01/17/24 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

3. Defendants may file written replies or supplemental replies to any oppositions 

filed by plaintiff within 10 days of plaintiff’s filing. The court will take this matter

under submission upon conclusion of this briefing schedule.

Dated: January 17, 2024

8

stil23cv2537.nooppo

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02537-KJM-CKD Document 41 Filed 01/17/24 Page 4 of 4