Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01781/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01781-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KONSTANTIN SADOMA,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-01781 MCE KJN PS

vs.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., ORDER

Defendants.

_________________________________/

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, is before the

undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). On July 16, 2010, defendants Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A.,

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively

“defendants”) moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. No. 7.) Defendants noticed the

motion for hearing on September 2, 2010. (Id.)

Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement

of non-opposition to defendants’ 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 August 19, 2010. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be

Case 2:10-cv-01781-MCE -KJN Document 10 Filed 08/23/10 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

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 183, governing persons appearing in pro se, provides that failure to

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

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. 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 is continued to September 30,

2010;

2. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion, or a statement of non-opposition

thereto, no later than September 16, 2010.

3. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of nonopposition to the pending motion, and may result in an adverse ruling, including but not limited

to a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b).

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

September 23, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 23, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:10-cv-01781-MCE -KJN Document 10 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2