Builders Bank v. Oreland, LLC et al

Filing 30

ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION 24 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. Good cause having been shown, and in light of the Court's strong policy of deciding cases on the merits, the motion to vacate the dismissal is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BUILDERS BANK, an Illinois
Bank Corporation,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
17

ORELAND, LLC, a California
limited liability company;
TIERRAVIEW, LLC, a
California limited liability
company; RICHARD PAEK, an
individual also known as
RICHARD J. PAEK,

18
19

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-06548 DDP (SHx)
ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL OF THE
ACTION
[Dkt. No. 24.]

20
21

On December 12, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case

22

on grounds of insufficient pleading and certain statutes of

23

limitations having run. (Dkt. No. 17.)

24

opposition to the motion by 21 days prior to the hearing date on

25

the motion, as required by local rules, and the Court vacated the

26

hearing and granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that it was

27

unopposed and therefore tacitly consented to.

28

///

Plaintiff did not file an

(Dkt. No. 22.)

1

Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed the present motion, asking the

2

Court to vacate the previous order.

3

counsel, who practices in Chicago, Illinois, represents to the

4

Court that he was under the impression that the motion would be

5

“presented” to the Court at the hearing, and that the briefing

6

schedule would then be set.

7

(Dkt. No. 24.)

Plaintiff’s

(Decl. Richard Grossman, ¶¶ 5-8.)

The Northern District of Illinois, where Chicago is located,

8

does indeed appear to use a “presentment” hearing as an initial

9

meeting with the court wherein a briefing schedule may be set.

10

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,

11

“General Rules: Rule 12,” http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov (last

12

See

visited Jan. 29, 2015).

13

The Central District of California, however, does not use the

14

“presentment” system; rather, the Court has a pre-set briefing

15

schedule that follows automatically from the setting of a hearing

16

date.

17

This schedule is not to be taken lightly, and failure to oppose a

18

motion to dismiss, in particular, may result in dismissal of a

19

claim or action.

See Central District of California L.R. 7-4, 7-9, 7-10.

L.R. 7-12.

20

Good cause having been shown, and in light of the Court’s

21

strong policy of deciding cases on the merits, the motion to vacate

22

the dismissal is GRANTED.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: February 2, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

27
28
2