Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00794/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00794-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hologic, Inc.
Defendant
Melba Johnson
Plaintiff

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

MELBA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLOGIC, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-0794 JAM KJN PS

ORDER

On August 5, 2014, defendant Hologic, Inc. (“defendant”) filed a motion for judgment on 

the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on the grounds that plaintiff’s 

complaint fails to state any claim for relief as a matter of law.

1

 (ECF No. 16.) Defendant noticed 

its motion for a hearing to take place before the undersigned on September 4, 2014. (Id.) 

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 August 21, 2014. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c).2 The court’s docket reveals that 

 

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).

 

2

 More specifically, Eastern District Local Rule 230(c) provides: 

(c) Opposition and Non-Opposition. 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00794-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/28/14 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

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.3 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 

 

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 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. . . .

3

 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 2:14-cv-00794-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/28/14 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

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

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 defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 16), 

which is presently set for September 4, 2014, is CONTINUED until October 23, 2014, 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 October 9, 2014. 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 any, on or before 

October 16, 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2014

Case 2:14-cv-00794-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 08/28/14 Page 3 of 3