Iskander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

E.D. California

Iskander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

DecidedApril 9, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-03381

StatusUnknown

This text of Iskander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Iskander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Iskander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILAD ISKANDER, Case No. 2:24-cv-3381-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 15 Defendant, 16 17 On February 14, 2025, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure 18 to state a claim. ECF No. 13. To date, plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s motion. 19 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 20 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 22 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 23 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 24 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 26 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 27 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 28 1 The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 2 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3 | Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 4 | will result in dismissal of this action. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The April 17, 2025 hearing on defendant’s motion is continued to May 22, 2025, at 7 | 10:00 a.m. 8 2. By no later than April 24, 2025, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- 9 | opposition to defendant’s motion. 10 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than April 24, 2025, why sanctions should not be 11 | imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s 12 | motion. 13 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs opposition, if any, no later than May 8, 2025. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | q Sty — Dated: _ April 8, 2025 q——— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MILAD ISKANDER, Case No. 2:24-cv-3381-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 15 Defendant, 16 17 On February 14, 2025, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure 18 to state a claim. ECF No. 13. To date, plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s motion. 19 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 20 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 21 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 22 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 23 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 24 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 26 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 27 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 28 1 The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be 2 | imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 3 | Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 4 | will result in dismissal of this action. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. The April 17, 2025 hearing on defendant’s motion is continued to May 22, 2025, at 7 | 10:00 a.m. 8 2. By no later than April 24, 2025, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- 9 | opposition to defendant’s motion. 10 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than April 24, 2025, why sanctions should not be 11 | imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s 12 | motion. 13 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs opposition, if any, no later than May 8, 2025. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | q Sty — Dated: _ April 8, 2025 q——— 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Iskander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iskander-v-jp-morgan-chase-bank-na-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack