Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02021/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02021-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Green Man Recycling, Inc.
Defendant
Scott Johnson
Plaintiff
Louis H. Voss
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 

SCOTT JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LOUIS H. VOSS, in his individual and 

representative capacity as Trustee-- the 

Louis H. Voss Trust; GREEN MAN 

RECYCLING, INC., a California 

corporation; and Does 1-10, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2021-TLN-EFB 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 On November 18, 2014, defendant Green Man Recycling filed a motion to quash service 

of the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) on the ground that Green 

Man Recycling was not properly served. ECF No. 5. Defendant noticed the motion for hearing 

for January 7, 2015. ECF No. 7. 

 Court records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to the 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 

September 10, 2014. 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 

Case 2:14-cv-02021-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 12/30/14 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

filed by that party.” 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.”). 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The hearing on defendant’s motion to quash, ECF No. 5, is continued to January 28, 

2015. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than January 14, 2015, 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 January 14, 2015. 

 4. Failure to file an opposition to the motion will be deemed a statement of nonopposition thereto, and may result in a recommendation that this this action be dismissed for lack 

of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders and this court’s Local Rules. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before January 21, 

2015. 

DATED: December 29, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-02021-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 2