Opinion
2:20-cv-0901 DJC DB PS
08-28-2023
RYAN ANENSON; SARAH ANENSON; and CHRISTIAN ANENSON, Plaintiffs, v. VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants,
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES, JUDGE
On December 20, 2022, plaintiffs' counsel was granted leave to withdraw. (ECF No. 83.) Plaintiffs Ryan Anenson, Sarah Anenson, and Christian Anenson are now proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On July 20, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned on September 1, 2023, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). (ECF No. 96.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiffs were to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants' motion not less “than fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed.” Plaintiffs, however, have not filed a timely opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motion.
The failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “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.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.
Plaintiffs did, however, file a request for permission to file electronically on July 28, 2023. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiffs state that such permission will allow plaintiffs “to expeditiously and efficiently file documents[.]” (Id. at 1.) Although plaintiffs' request is understandable, the undersigned is concerned that plaintiffs may not be aware of the court's requirements and the implications of being granted permission for electronic filing. See generally Local Rules 131, 133, 137, 140, & 141. Plaintiffs' motion, therefore, will be denied without prejudice to filing a renewed motion that acknowledges plaintiffs have reviewed all of the relevant Local Rules and requirements for electronic filing.
Plaintiffs filing also states that plaintiffs “have been making a diligent effort to find another attorney to represent us.” (ECF No. 97 at 1.) In light of this representation, plaintiffs' pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the undersigned will continue the hearing of defendants' motion to provide plaintiffs an opportunity to obtain counsel and a final opportunity to oppose defendants' motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The September 1, 2023 hearing of defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 96) is continued to Friday, November 3, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned; 3 2. On or before October 20, 2023, plaintiffs shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendants' motion; 3. Plaintiffs' July 28, 2023 motion for electronic filing (ECF No. 97) is denied without prejudice to renewal; and 4. Plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the recommendation that this case be dismissed.