Chaderick A. Ingram v. The University of Phoenix, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHADERICK A. INGRAM, Case No. 2:25-cv-2652-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On September 22, 2025, defendant filed a motion to dismiss this case for failure to state a 18 claim, which it set for hearing on November 13, 2025.1 ECF Nos. 4 & 8. To date, plaintiff has 19 not responded to defendant’s motion. 20 Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. 22 E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet 23 certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to 24 comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon 25 Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 26 …