(PS) Mouhab v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Opinion

ISHMAEL MOUHAB, Case No. 2:23-cv-01431-TLN-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER v. GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE JANUARY JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 11, 2024 HEARING AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND TO SHOW CAUSE BY FEBRUARY 8, 2024 ECF No. 15 On November 17, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, which is set for hearing on January 11, 2024. ECF Nos. 12 & 13. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion. However, he recently moved to continue the January 11, 2024 hearing by three months because he will be out of state and states that he cannot attend the hearing in person. ECF No. 15. 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. Because plaintiff has not responded to defendant’s motion, the court will continue the January 11 hearing and give him the opportunity to explain why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendants’ 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 this action be dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion for a three-month continuance is denied. The hearing on defendant’s motion will be conducted via Zoom, thereby permitting plaintiff to appear remotely.1 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to continue the hearing, ECF No. 15, is denied. 2. The January 11, 2024 hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is continued to March 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., via Zoom. 3. By no later than February 8, 2024, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non- opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 12. 4. Plaintiff shall show cause, by no later than February 8, 2024, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion. 5. Defendant may file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition, if any, no later than February 22, 2024. 6. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to comply with local rules.

1 The Zoom information will be emailed to the parties the week of the hearing. > IT IS SO ORDERED. ( | { Wine Dated: _ January 8, 2024 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE