Opinion
No. 2:10-cv-02075-LKK-KJN-PS.
April 15, 2011
ORDER
This matter was set for a status conference on April 21, 2011. Plaintiff, who is an attorney, has requested that the status conference be continued thirty (30) days because plaintiff will be traveling out of the country and unable to attend the conference as originally scheduled. (Dkt. No. 13.) Plaintiff represents that such a continuance would also give the parties time to finalize a joint status report and to engage in settlement discussions. (Id.)
This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
To date, defendant LT, GP, individually and doing business as Green Lantern Motel (the "defendant"), has not filed a status report and has not opposed plaintiff's request for a continuance. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for a continuance is granted and the status conference currently set for April 21, 2011, is vacated. The undersigned shall conduct a status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this matter on May 19, 2011.
Based on a review of the court's docket, it also appears that defendants filed a document styled as an "Answer" to plaintiff's complaint. (Dkt. No. 8.) That document is a letter addressed to plaintiff. The undersigned cautions defendant that filing such a letter with the court does not constitute a legally sufficient answer to the complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. In filing an answer to the complaint, defendant must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's Local Rules, the latter of which are available at the Office of the Clerk. A failure to do so could result in the entry of default and a default judgment against defendant.
Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part: "Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on 'counsel' by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal . . . or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules." See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.").
For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for April 21, 2011, is vacated.
2. The undersigned shall conduct a status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this matter on May 19, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25. All parties shall file status reports in accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 240(b), preferably a joint status report, at least 14 days in advance of the status (pretrial scheduling) conference. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions.
3. Defendant shall file an answer to plaintiff's complaint that accords with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 within 14 days of service of this order. Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2011