Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02638/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02638-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Countrywide Financial Corporation
Defendant
Landsafe Title of California, Inc.
Defendant
Lyubov Melnik
Plaintiff
Recontrust Company, N.A.
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYUBOV MELNIK,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2638 JAM EFB PS

vs.

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL

CORPORATION; RECONTRUST

COMPANY, N.A.; and LANDSAFE

TITLE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ORDER AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

_________________________________/

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, is before the undersigned pursuant to

Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September

21, 2009, defendants removed the action to this court from Placer County Superior Court on the

ground that plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleges numerous federal claims, and on October

9, 2009, moved to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended complaint. Dckt. Nos. 1, 12. 

On December 3, 2009, the undersigned issued an order denying defendants’ motion to

dismiss without prejudice because defendants failed to file a copy of plaintiff’s first amended

complaint. Dckt. No. 17. After filing a copy of the amended complaint, on January 13, 2010,

defendants renoticed the motion to dismiss for hearing on February 17, 2010. Dckt. No. 20.

////

Case 2:09-cv-02638-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/05/10 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

1

 If the court determines that oral argument on the motion would be of assistance to the

court, it will reschedule a hearing on the motion.

2

Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a 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 February 3, 2010. 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 ground for dismissal,

judgment by default, or other appropriate sanction. 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’ motion to dismiss is vacated;1

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 26, 2010, 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 February 26, 2010.

////

Case 2:09-cv-02638-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/05/10 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

3

4. Failure of plaintiff to file an opposition will be deemed a statement of non-opposition

to the pending motion, and may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack

of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

5. Defendants may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before March 5,

2010. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 5, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02638-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 02/05/10 Page 3 of 3