(PS) Meyer v. Central Valley Flood Protection Board

Opinion

LIAM MEYER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02979-DAD-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROTECTION BOARD, Defendant. On January 22, 2024, defendant filed a motion to remand this action to state court. ECF No. 3. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The court will give plaintiff the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that his claims be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The March 7, 2024 hearing on defendant’s motion to remand is continued to April 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 9. 2. By no later than March 14, 2024, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- opposition to defendant’s motion to remand. See ECF No. 3. 3. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than March 14, 2024, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 4. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiffs opposition, if any, no later than March 28, 2024. 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that defendant’s motion be granted, or plaintiffs claims be dismissed. ( 1 Sty — Dated: _ February 23, 2024 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE