Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01481/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01481-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

FERNANDO GASTELUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

LL SACRAMENTO LP,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01481-DJC-JDP (PS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July 6, 2022, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 19. To date, 

plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion.

Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 

certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 

comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 

Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 

1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 

duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

Case 2:21-cv-01481-DJC-JDP Document 41 Filed 10/04/24 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

The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 

imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 

will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The October 10, 2024 hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment is 

continued to November 14, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9.

2. By no later than October 24, 2024, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of 

non-opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 40.

3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than October 24, 2024, why sanctions should not 

be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s 

motion.

4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, no later than November 7, 

2024. 

5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with 

local rules. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01481-DJC-JDP Document 41 Filed 10/04/24 Page 2 of 2