Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00331/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00331-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

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

CHERYL LYNN DOUGLAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE EZRALOW COMPANY LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-00331-KJM-CKD (PS)

ORDER 

Plaintiffs proceed without counsel on a fee-paid complaint seeking damages and 

injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1.) On August 28, 2024, plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion styled as a 

motion for relief from an order based on clerical mistakes. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant The Ezralow 

Company LLC has opposed the motion. (ECF No. 18.)

On September 25, 2024, defendant The Ezralow Company LLC filed an amended motion 

to quash service of summons. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiffs did not file a timely opposition to the 

motion to quash service of summons. See Local Rule 230(c).

Plaintiffs’ failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion 

to quash service of summons violates Local Rule 230(c). However, the court will provide 

plaintiffs with a further opportunity to respond to the pending motion within 14 days after service 

of this order. Plaintiffs are cautioned that any further failure to respond will be construed as their 

non-opposition to the motion which could also constitute grounds for dismissal of this case.

Case 2:24-cv-00331-KJM-CKD Document 20 Filed 10/16/24 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

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....”

Accordingly, the hearing set for November 13, 2024, on defendant’s motion to quash is vacated. 

After the conclusion of briefing, the motion will be submitted for decision on the record and 

written briefing. Separately, the court finds plaintiffs’ motion for relief from an order based on 

clerical mistakes is suitable for decision without oral argument under Local Rule 230(g). If the 

court subsequently determines that oral argument would be beneficial for either motion, the 

parties will be notified accordingly.

In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for relief from an order reset to take place on 

November 13, 2024, and the hearing on defendant’s motion to quash set to take 

place on November 13, 2024, are both VACATED.

2. Plaintiffs shall file a written opposition (or a statement of non-opposition) to the

motion to quash 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 motion

and may also constitute a ground for the imposition of appropriate sanctions, 

including a recommendation that plaintiffs’ case be involuntarily dismissed with 

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

3. Defendant may file a written reply to any opposition filed by plaintiff within 10

days of plaintiff’s filing. The court will take the pending motions under 

submission upon conclusion of this briefing schedule.

Dated: October 16, 2024

8

doug24cv0031.nooppo

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00331-KJM-CKD Document 20 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2