Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00788/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00788-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maribel Domantay
Plaintiff
NDEX West, LLC
Defendant
World Savings Bank
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

MARIBEL DOMANTAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

NDEX WEST, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0788-MCE-KJN PS

ORDER

On June 9, 2015, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending 

that this case be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiff’s

multiple failures to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant World 

Savings Bank’s (“defendant”) pending motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 11.) On June 11, 2015, one 

week after the extended filing deadline set by the court’s May 11, 2015 order, plaintiff filed an 

opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 12.) It appears that plaintiff filed her 

untimely opposition under the erroneous belief that she was required to file by June 11, 2015, the 

deadline the court set in its June 9, 2015 order for defendant to file its reply brief.

In light of plaintiff’s pro se status and the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits, see Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (“Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.”), the 

court will vacate the June 9, 2015 findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this 

Case 2:15-cv-00788-MCE-KJN Document 14 Filed 06/24/15 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

action with prejudice in order to address defendant’s motion to dismiss on the merits.1 Because 

defendant has filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition addressing plaintiff’s opposition on the merits,

(ECF No. 13), no further briefing regarding defendant’s motion to dismiss will be permitted. 

Furthermore, after reviewing the parties’ briefing, the court concludes that oral argument would 

not be of material assistance in resolving defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, this 

motion is submitted on the record and briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). If the court 

subsequently determines that oral argument is necessary, it will set a hearing by separate order.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The June 9, 2015 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 11) recommending 

dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) are 

VACATED.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is submitted on the record and briefing 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). If the court subsequently determines that oral argument is 

necessary, it will set a hearing by separate order. No further briefing with regard to this motion 

will be permitted unless directed by the court via subsequent order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2015

 

1

Plaintiff is admonished that the court will not act so leniently with respect to any future failures 

on plaintiff’s part to comply with any deadlines or other orders issued by the court. Any future 

failures to comply with such orders will result in a recommendation that plaintiff’s entire 

action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Case 2:15-cv-00788-MCE-KJN Document 14 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 2