(PS)Young v. Paul Financial, LLC et al, No. 2:2009cv01117 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/9/09, ORDERING that the 7/15/09 hearing on dft's motion to dismiss 5 , is VACATED. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for f ailure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the courts order as well as the FRCP and the LR's of this court. This matter is being referred to Judge Damrell. Within 10 days after being served with these f&r's, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
(PS)Young v. Paul Financial, LLC et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 YVETTE YOUNG, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1117 FCD EFB PS vs. PAUL FINANCIAL, LLC, et al., ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Defendants. / 15 16 On June 5, 2009, this court ordered plaintiff to show cause, on or before July 1, 2009, 17 why sanctions should not be imposed due to plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition or statement 18 of non-opposition to defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was also directed to file an 19 opposition or a statement of non-opposition no later than July 1, 2009. The hearing date of June 20 17, 2009 was continued to July 15, 2009, to permit plaintiff additional time to respond to the 21 pending motion. 22 23 The July 1, 2009 deadline has expired, and plaintiff has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court’s order. It appears that plaintiff has abandoned this case. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows dismissal “[i]f the plaintiff fails to 25 prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order . . . ” See also E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110 26 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 2 within the inherent power of the Court”). Plaintiff’s pro se status does not derogate this 3 authority. “Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the 4 Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules. All obligations placed 5 on ‘counsel’ by these Local Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to 6 comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction 7 appropriate under these Rules.” E. D. Cal. L. R. 83-183. 8 9 10 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the July 15, 2009 hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 5, is vacated. Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 11 prejudice for failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the court’s order as well as the 12 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. 13 Cal. L R. 11-110. 14 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 15 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days after 16 being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 17 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 18 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 20 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 DATED: July 9, 2009. 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.