Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00029/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
N. S B
Plaintiff
John Pascarella
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N. S B,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN PASCARELLA,

Defendants.

No. 2:20–cv–29–KJM–KJN PS

ORDER REQUIRING OPPOSITION AND

RESETTING HEARING

(ECF No. 4, 6)

On January 3, 2020, Defendant removed this case to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant 

subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to change venue, setting each for a February 

13, 2020 hearing.

1

 (ECF Nos. 4, 6.) 

Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, Plaintiff was obligated to file and serve a written 

opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion at least fourteen (14) days prior 

to the hearing date: or January 30, 2020. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c) (“Opposition, if any, to the 

granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) 

days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing date. A responding party who has no 

opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically 

 

1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

 

Case 2:20-cv-00029-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 01/31/20 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

27

28

2

designating the motion in question. No 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. . . .”). 

The Court’s docket reveals that Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, failed to file a 

written opposition or statement of non-opposition with respect to the motion for judgment on the 

pleadings.

Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 

with these Rules or with any order of the Court 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.” 

Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney 

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 

Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 

“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria 

persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, 

judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these 

Rules.

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”) (overruled on other grounds). Case law is in 

accord that a district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s 

case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his 

or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the 

court’s local rules.2 See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a 

court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation 

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss 

an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to 

prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a 

 

2

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that under certain circumstances a district court 

does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(b) for failing to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Trice v. Clark 

County Sch. Dist., 376 Fed. App’x. 789, 790 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). By analogy, this 

authority applies to failure to oppose a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which similarly 

challenges a plaintiff’s complaint after the filing of an answer. 

Case 2:20-cv-00029-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 01/31/20 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

27

28

3

proper ground for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for 

failure to comply with any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 

F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to 

control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 4, 6), which is presently set for 

February 13, 2020, is CONTINUED until March 5, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., in 

Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned; 

2. Plaintiff shall file a written opposition to the motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, or a statement of non-opposition thereto, on or before February 20, 

2020. Plaintiff’s failure to file a written opposition will be deemed a statement of 

non-opposition to the pending motion and consent to the granting of the motion, 

and shall constitute an additional ground for the imposition of appropriate 

sanctions, including a recommendation that Plaintiff’s entire case be involuntarily 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

3. Defendant may file a written reply to Plaintiff’s opposition, if Defendant so 

chooses, on or before February 27, 2020.

4. The Initial Scheduling Conference in this matter, currently set for May 14, 2020, is 

VACATED, and will be rescheduled if and when necessary.

Dated: January 31, 2020

nsb.29

Case 2:20-cv-00029-KJM-KJN Document 8 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 3