Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01597/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01597-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331(a) Fed. Question: Real Property

---

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 

PHILLIP McINTYRE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006- 

OC10, THE BANK OF NEW YORK 

MELLON fka THE BANK OF NEW 

YORK as TRUSTEE for the 

ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006- 

OC10, and DOES 1-10, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1597-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On August 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and a motion to strike portions of the first amended complaint. ECF Nos. 36, 38. 

Defendants noticed the motions for hearing on September 24, 2014. Id. 

 Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motions. 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 September 10, 2014. 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.” 

Case 2:13-cv-01597-TLN-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/12/14 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 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to comply 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules may be grounds for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanctions. 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.”). 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). 

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

 1. The hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to strike, ECF Nos. 36, 38, is 

continued to October 29, 2014. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than October 15, 2014, 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 shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition 

thereto, no later than October 15, 2014. 

 4. Failure of to file an opposition to the motions will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this this action be dismissed for lack 

of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before October 22, 

2014. 

DATED: September 11, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01597-TLN-EFB Document 41 Filed 09/12/14 Page 2 of 2