Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02154/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02154-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Express Corporation
Defendant
Sheetmetal & Associates
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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHEETMETAL & ASSOCIATES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:19-cv-2154-TLN-EFB PS 

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6), which is currently set for hearing on January 8, 2020. ECF Nos. 6 & 8. 

Court records reflect plaintiff has not filed an opposition or 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 December 26, 2019. 

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 

Case 2:19-cv-02154-TLN-JDP Document 11 Filed 01/02/20 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 

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 defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued to February 5, 2020 at 

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 8. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than January 22, 2020, why sanctions 

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

defendant’s motion. 

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

no later than January 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. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, on or before January 29, 

2020. 

DATED: January 2, 2020. 

 

 

Case 2:19-cv-02154-TLN-JDP Document 11 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2