Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01459/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01459-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 

ANDREW RITCHSON, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOHN ROSS ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-1459-EFB 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On December 23, 2015, non-party New Hampshire Insurance Company (“New 

Hampshire”) filed a motion to intervene in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

24. ECF No. 22. The motion is currently noticed for hearing on February 10, 2016. ECF No. 24. 

Court records reflect that neither plaintiff nor defendants have filed an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to the motion. 

Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a 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 27, 2016. 

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 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01459-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/04/16 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

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.”). King v. Atiyeh, 

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

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

 1. The hearing on New Hampshire’s motion to intervene (ECF Nos. 22) is continued to 

March 2, 2016. 

 2. Plaintiff and defendants shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 17, 2016, 

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 and defendants shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than February 17, 2016. 

 4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto and may result in the court granting the motion to intervene. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(b). 

 5. New Hampshire may file a reply to any opposition on or before February 24, 2016. 

DATED: February 4, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-01459-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 2