From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randall v. T. Kimura

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2011
No. 2:10-cv-0052 JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)

Opinion

No. 2:10-cv-0052 JFM (PC).

May 27, 2011


ORDER


On April 13, 2011, defendant Swingle filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.

Local Rule 230(1) provides in part: "Failure of the responding party to file written opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion. . . ." On November 16, 2010, plaintiff was advised of the requirements for filing an opposition to the motion and that failure to oppose such a motion may be deemed a waiver of opposition to the motion.

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." In the order filed November 16, 2010, plaintiff was advised that failure to comply with the Local Rules may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within thirty days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition, if any he has, to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that plaintiff's claim against defendant Swingle be dismissed pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

DATED: May 26, 2011.


Summaries of

Randall v. T. Kimura

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2011
No. 2:10-cv-0052 JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)
Case details for

Randall v. T. Kimura

Case Details

Full title:JERALD RANDALL, Plaintiff, v. T. KIMURA, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 27, 2011

Citations

No. 2:10-cv-0052 JFM (PC) (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)