Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02267/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02267-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael M. Baker
Defendant
Bank of America Corporation
Defendant
Bobbie Eddy
Plaintiff
Mark Eddy
Plaintiff
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
Defendant
Service Link, LLC
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 

MARK EDDY; BOBBIE EDDY, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION (As Trustee for Freddie 

Mac MultiClass Certificates Series 3450); 

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 

(As Parent to Bank of America, M.A., as 

Successor in Interest By Merger with 

Countrywide Bank, FSB); SERVICE 

LINK, LLC; MICHAEL M. BAKER, Esq.; 

Does 1-5, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-2267-KJM-EFB PS 

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Defendants Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) and Bank of America 

Corporation (“Bank of America”) filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ first amended complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which they noticed for hearing on April 1, 

2020. ECF No. 46. Court records reflect that plaintiffs have not filed an opposition or statement 

of non-opposition to the pending 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 March 18, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02267-KJM-EFB Document 47 Filed 03/27/20 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 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 

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’ motions to dismiss (ECF No. 46) is continued to May 6, 

2020 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 8. 

 2. Plaintiffs shall show cause, in writing, no later than April 22, 2020, why sanctions 

should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 

defendant Baker’s motion to dismiss. 

 3. Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to defendants’ motion, or a statement of nonopposition thereto, no later than April 22, 2020. 

 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 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. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiffs’ opposition, if any, on or before April 29, 

2020. 

DATED: March 27, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02267-KJM-EFB Document 47 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2