Salazar v. Lehman Brothers Bank et al

Filing 6

ORDER that pla shall have until 3/26/10 to file a response to dfts' 5 MOTION to Dismiss. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order and the motion to dismiss to pla at the following addresses: (1) P.O. Box 11054, Scottsdale, AZ 85271; and (2) 18017 West Montebello Avenue, Litchfield Park, AZ 85340. Pla is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motion to dismiss if pla fails to comply with this order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 3/12/10. (LAD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Lehman Brothers Bank; Faslo Solutions; ) Camelback Title; MERS; Aurora Loan ) ) Services; and Quality Loan Service, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Rumi Salazar,

No. CV-10-99-PHX-DGC ORDER

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants on January 19, 2010. Dkt. #1. On February 4, 2010, Defendants Lehman Brothers Bank, Aurora Loan Services, and Quality Loan Service filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. #5. Plaintiff has filed no response, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 12.1(b), 56.1(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Plaintiff shall have until March 26, 2010 to file a response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. #5). Plaintiff must become familiar with, and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("Local Rules"). See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants."); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (pro se litigants "should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record"); Carter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986) ("Although pro se, [plaintiff] is expected to abide by the rules of the court in which he

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

litigates."). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available at the following Internet website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/. A copy of the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure may be obtained from the Clerk's Office. Rule 7.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an unrepresented party's failure to respond to a motion "may be deemed a consent to the . . . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." LRCiv 7.2(i). Plaintiff is advised that if he does not file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. #5) by March 26, 2010, the Court will summarily grant the motion. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995). IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff shall have until March 26, 2010 to file a response to Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. #5). 2. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order and the motion to dismiss to Plaintiff at the following addresses: (1) P.O. Box 11054, Scottsdale, Arizona, 85271; and (2) 18017 West Montebello Avenue, Litchfield Park, Arizona, 85340. 3. Plaintiff is warned that the Court will summarily grant the motion to dismiss if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order. DATED this 12th day of March, 2010.

-2-