(PS) Mouhab v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01431
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISHMAEL MOUHAB, Case No. 2:23-cv-01431-TLN-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE JANUARY 14 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 11, 2024 HEARING AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO 15 Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND TO SHOW CAUSE BY FEBRUARY 8, 2024 16 ECF No. 15 17 18 On November 17, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, which 19 is set for hearing on January 11, 2024. ECF Nos. 12 & 13. To date, plaintiff has not filed a 20 response to the motion. However, he recently moved to continue the January 11, 2024 hearing by 21 three months because he will be out of state and states that he cannot attend the hearing in person. 22 ECF No. 15. 23 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 24 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 25 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 26 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 27 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 28 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a 2 duty to administer justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See 3 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 4 Because plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s motion, the court will continue the 5 January 11 hearing and give him the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed 6 for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ motion. Plaintiff’s 7 failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and will result 8 in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for a three-month 9 continuance is denied. The hearing on defendant’s motion will be conducted via Zoom, thereby 10 permitting plaintiff to appear remotely.1 11 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing, ECF No. 15, is denied. 13 2. The January 11, 2024 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued to March 14 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., via Zoom. 15 3. By no later than February 8, 2024, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- 16 opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 12. 17 4. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than February 8, 2024, why sanctions should not 18 be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s 19 motion. 20 5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, no later than February 22, 21 2024. 22 6. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 23 dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with 24 local rules. 25 26 27

28 1 The Zoom information will be emailed to the parties the week of the hearing. 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ January 8, 2024 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28