Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00688/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00688-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.
Defendant
Angela Nails
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 

ANGELA NAILS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-688-MCE-EFB PS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) and noticed the motion for hearing on June 29, 2016. ECF Nos. 3, 8. Court 

records reflect that plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition 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 June 15, 2016. 

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 grounds for dismissal, judgment by 

default, or other appropriate sanctions. Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the 

Case 2:16-cv-00688-MCE-EFB Document 13 Filed 06/22/16 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

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 defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is continued to July 20, 

2016. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than July 6, 2016, 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 July 6, 2016. 

 4. Failure of to file an opposition to the motions 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 July 13, 2016. 

 6. The clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff at the following 

addresses: 

 a. 22435 Dix Toledo Road, Unit 1 

Brownstown, MI 48183; and 

 b. 15406 Bellaire Ave., Apt. M 

Grandview, MO 64030 

DATED: June 22, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00688-MCE-EFB Document 13 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2