Cooper v. City of Fairfield

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICIA V. COOPER, No. 2:21–cv–1538–JAM-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 10.)

14 CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On August 26, 2021, defendants removed this case to this court. (ECF No. 1.) On September 2, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, noticing the motion for an October 7, 2021 hearing before the undersigned.1 (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff failed to file her opposition by the required deadline, and so the court vacated the hearing and provided her with an additional opportunity to respond by written filing. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff then requested an extension of time to respond, asserting she needed more time to find counsel. (ECF No. 5). The extension was granted, and in November 2021, the parties stipulated to a further extension. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) Under the stipulation, plaintiff was required to update the court as to the status of her search by January 13, 2022. (ECF No. 8.)

26 /// This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Cal. Local Rule 302(c)(21).

1 On January 18, 2022, plaintiff filed a document with the court entitled “Stipulation Re: Further Extension of Time; [Proposed Order].” (ECF No. 10.) This document appeared to the court to be the November 2021 stipulation, but altered to indicate the parties had further stipulated to another extension of time as of January 13, 2022. For clarity, the court ordered defendants to either confer with plaintiff on another stipulation or file opposition to the extension of time, and if defendants opposed, plaintiff could file a reply. (ECF No. 11.) On February 3, 2022, defendants filed their response opposing the extension of time. (ECF No. 12.) Notably, defense counsel indicated he had not consented to the use of his signature on plaintiff’s January 18th filing. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Thus, the January 18th filing appears to be a forgery submitted by plaintiff.

11 Plaintiff has been warned before about her obligations as a litigant in this case. (See ECF No. 4.) Specifically, the court has warned plaintiff that, even though she is representing herself, she is still bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, and all other applicable law. See Local Rule 183(a) (“All obligations placed on ‘counsel’ by these Rules apply to individuals appearing [without counsel]. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal, judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.”); see also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Rule 11(b) states: 19 By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating 20 it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an 21 inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: 22 (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of 23 litigation; *** 24 (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after 25 a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Violations of Rule 11(b) are sanctionable, so longs as the offending party has notice and opportunity to respond. Id. Here, plaintiff’s January 18th document runs afoul of Rule 11, and so plaintiff is ordered to show cause why she should not be sanctioned. ] Accordingly, the court now ORDERS: 2 1. No further extensions of time are granted. Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of 3 this order to file her opposition to the motion to dismiss; thereafter, defendants may 4 submit their optional reply within 7 days of plaintiff's opposition; 5 2. Plaintiff shall also have 14 days to show cause why she should not be sanctioned for her 6 January 18" submission; and 7 3. Further failure to respond will be construed as plaintiff's consent to the granting of the 8 motion to dismiss and acceptance of sanctions, which may include dismissal of her case.

9 See Local Rule 230(c) (‘A failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the 10 court as a non-opposition to the motion.”).

11 | Dated: March 7, 2022 Aectl Aharon 13 KENDALL J. NE coop. 1538 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE