Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00463/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00463-3/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

 The hearing was previously set for September 21, 2006, before Magistrate Judge

Gregory H. Hollows. By minute order dated September 6, 2006, the hearing date was moved to

September 20, 2006, due to the reassignment of this case to the undersigned. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC EDWARD BOWMAN,

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

vs.

ASSOCIATES HOME 

EQUITY SERVICES, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 7, 2006, defendants filed a request to continue the hearing set for

September 20, 2006, on defendants’ motion to dismiss.1

 Defendants request the continuance due

to scheduling conflicts posed by the September 20, 2006 hearing date. 

Good cause appearing, defendants’ request for a continuance is hereby

GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be heard on Wednesday, October 4, 2006, at

10:00 a.m. in courtroom 25 of the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of California

in Sacramento, California. The court notes that plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition to

defendants’ motion to dismiss. Pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(c), plaintiff shall file an

Case 2:06-cv-00463-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 09/12/06 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

opposition (or statement of non-opposition) to the motion no later than September 20,

2006. 

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; Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Additionally, “[n]o

party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments 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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2006.

EFB:mb

Bowman06cv463.order.continue hearing

Case 2:06-cv-00463-JAM-EFB Document 15 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2