Opinion
No C 06-2023 VRW.
June 21, 2007
ORDER
Defendant Bank of America filed a motion for summary judgment on April 5, 2007. Doc #45. Per the court's order of March 8, 2007 (Doc #41), this motion was to be heard on May 10, 2007. The court later continued the motion hearing to June 21, 2007. Doc #51. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition on or before June 1, 2007 as required by Civ Local Rule 7-3(a).
Accordingly, the court vacated the June 21, 2007 hearing and ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant Bank of America's motion should not be treated as unopposed. Doc #58.
On June 15, 2007, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause. Doc #59. Plaintiff asserts:
Plaintiff has taken extensive notes and was fully prepared to present his response to the Court at the hearing on June 21, in the form of oral argument. He did not know that his response needed to be submitted in writing. Since receiving the Court's Order to Show Cause, he has tried to organize his notes into a meaningful written response, but would ask an additional two weeks to complete the process, as the issues that require a response are numerous.
Id at 2.
While the court has reservations about allowing plaintiff to file an opposition after such a long and otherwise unexplained delay, the court cannot conclude that plaintiff's failure properly to file an opposition warrants the harsh sanction of dismissal as to defendant Bank of America.
Accordingly, if plaintiff desires to prosecute this action against Bank of America, the court DIRECTS plaintiff to file an opposition to Bank of America's motion for summary judgment on or before July 6, 2007. Bank of America may file a reply on or before July 20, 2007. The parties shall appear for a hearing on Bank of America's motion on August 16, 2007 at 2:00 pm. The pretrial conference, currently scheduled for July 24, 2007, is hereby VACATED and continued to October 2, 2007 at 9:00 am.
Plaintiff should be aware that although he is representing himself in this action, he is nevertheless obligated to follow the same rules as represented parties. See King v Atiyeh, 814 F2d 565, 567 (9th Cir 1987). Lack of awareness of the applicable rules and procedures is no excuse for failure to comply with those rules. See Swimmer v IRS, 811 F2d 1343, 1344 (9th Cir 1987). The Handbook For Litigants Without A Lawyer, published by the court, contains detailed instructions on opposing a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is directed to this resource, which he should have already obtained from the clerk pursuant to the court's standing order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.