Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00541/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00541-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Porterville
Defendant
Ana Isabel Moreno
Plaintiff
Bruce Sokoloff
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

ANA ISABEL MORENO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00541-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ana Isabel Moreno (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, filed the instant action 

on April 6, 2023. (Doc. 1.) By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff filed a First Amended 

Complaint on August 14, 2023, and a Second Amended Complaint on September 6, 2023. (See 

Docs. 12, 15, 18, 19.) Defendants City of Porterville and Bruce Sokoloff (collectively 

“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on September 27, 2023.

1

(Doc. 20.) 

Local Rule 230(c), as revised March 1, 2022, requires that opposition, if any, to the 

granting of the motion be filed and served no later than fourteen (14) days after the motion was 

filed. L.R. 230(c). Further, Local Rule 230(c) provides that the “failure to file a timely 

opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.” L.R. 230(c). 

1 The matter recently was reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings in this 

action, including trial and entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 28.) 

Case 1:23-cv-00541-BAM Document 29 Filed 03/22/24 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

Plaintiff’s opposition or non-opposition to the motion to dismiss was due no later than October 

11, 2023. To date, no opposition has been filed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 

RESPONSE within fourteen (14) days of service of this order why the motion to dismiss 

should not be granted and the action dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a 

timely opposition. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ September 27, 2023 motion to dismiss. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1). Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in 

dismissal of this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00541-BAM Document 29 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 2