Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00395/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00395-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Irene Anokhin
Plaintiff
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LLP
Defendant
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

IRENE ANOKHIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-395 MCE EFB PS

vs.

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LLP;

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; and ORDER AND

DOES 1 through 100, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

_________________________________/

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February

16, 2010, defendants removed the action to this court from Sacramento County Superior Court

on the ground that plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges federal claims, and on February 23,

2010, moved to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Dckt. Nos. 1, 6. Defendants noticed

the motion for hearing on April 21, 2010. Dckt. No. 6.

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,

Case 2:10-cv-00395-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 04/12/10 Page 1 of 3
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

in this instance, by April 7, 2010. 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.” 

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 May 19, 2010 at 10:00

a.m. in Courtroom No. 24;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than May 5, 2010, 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 motion, or a statement of non-opposition

thereto, no later than May 5, 2010.

4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition

to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack

of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

////

////

////

Case 2:10-cv-00395-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 04/12/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before May 12,

2010. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 12, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00395-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 04/12/10 Page 3 of 3