Case4:13-cv-03353-SBA Document17 Filed09/30/13 Page1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, a
CALIFORNIA Corporation, DOES 1-50,
Case No: C 13-3353 SBA
On October 9, 2012, Plaintiff Ali Alawi ("Plaintiff") commenced the instant action
against Defendant AMCO Insurance Company ("Defendant") in the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, alleging a claim for breach of contract. Compl., Dkt. 1.
On July 18, 2013, the action was removed to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Notice of Removal, Dkt. 1. On July 25, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike the complaint. Dkt. 9. On July 29, 2013, the action was reassigned to the
undersigned. Dkt. 12. On July 30, 2013, Defendant renoticed its motion to dismiss and
motion to strike, which is currently set for hearing on October 1, 2013. Dkt. 15.
Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, any opposition or statement of non-opposition to a
motion is due no later than two weeks after the filing of the motion. This Court's Standing
Orders specifically warn that the "failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of
points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting
of the motion." Civil Standing Orders at 5, Dkt. 13. Notwithstanding the requirements of
Civil Local Rule 7-3 and this Court's Standing Orders, Plaintiff has filed nothing in
response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike the complaint.
Case4:13-cv-03353-SBA Document17 Filed09/30/13 Page2 of 2
The Court warns Plaintiff that the failure to file a response to Defendant's motion to
dismiss and motion to strike the complaint (Dkt. 9) within seven (7) days from the date this
Order is filed will result in the dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with a Court Order. See Hells Canyon
Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizing
that a district court may dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff's
failure to prosecute or comply with a court order); Ferdick v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any
order of the court).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to
strike the complaint by no later than seven days (7) from the date this Order is filed.
Plaintiff's failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this action under
The October 1, 2013 hearing is VACATED. In the event Plaintiff timely
responds to Defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike the complaint, Defendant
may file a reply brief by no later than seven (7) days after the date Plaintiff's response is
due. Upon the expiration of the briefing schedule, the Court will take the matter under
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
- 2 -