(PS) Meyer v. Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIAM MEYER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02979-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
PROTECTION BOARD,
15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On January 22, 2024, defendant filed a motion to remand this action to state court. ECF 19 No. 3. To date, plaintiff has not filed a response. 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 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district…