Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01756/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01756-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
First American Loanstar Trustee Services, LLC
Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Defendant
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
Defendant
Paul Yant
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL YANT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-1756 MCE EFB PS

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; ORDER AND

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR 

TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC,

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 July 8,

2010, defendant Wells Fargo removed the action to this court from Sacramento County Superior

Court on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint alleges federal claims. Dckt. No. 1 On July 15,

2010, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Dckt. Nos. 9, 12. Defendants noticed

the motions to be heard on August 25, 2010.

Court records reflect that plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a statement of

non-opposition to defendant’s 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 August 4, 2010. Local Rule 230(c) further provides that “[n]o party will be

Case 2:10-cv-01756-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 08/13/10 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

2

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’ motions to dismiss is continued to October 6, 2010;

2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than September 22, 2010, why sanctions

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

the pending motions.

3. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motions, or a statement of non-opposition

thereto, no later than September 22, 2010.

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 September

29, 2010. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 13, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01756-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2