(PS) Horton v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JASON HORTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-01048-DAD-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL
RULES
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., ECF No. 3 Defendant.
16 On June 24, 2022, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 3. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response. Under the court’s local rules, a responding party is required to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to a motion no later than fourteen days after the date it was filed. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(c). To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 25 …