Lori Mannarino et al v. Fay Servicing LLC et al

Filing 53

ORDER INSTRUCTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN OPPOSITION BRIEF NO LATER THAN JUNE 29, 2015 5:00 PM. Defendants shall file a reply no later than 5:00 p.m. onMonday, July 6, 2015. Defendants reply shall clearly apprise the Court of whichdefendants join the Motion to Dismiss. Both the opposition and the reply shall be compliance with the Local Rules. The Court will issue an order in an expedited manner once briefing is complete. The Court will not conduct a hearing. The Courts Order to Show Cause issued to Plaintiffs on June 6, 2015, still remains in effect and will only be discharged upon an appropriate filing from Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 48.) All other hearings in this matter are vacated by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
Central District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

LORI MANNARINO; SAM TREIHAFT,

Case No. 2:15-cv-02409-ODW(PLAx)

Plaintiffs,
v.
FAY SERVICING LLC; PROF-2013-M4
REO I LLC; PROF-2013-S REMIC
TRUST III; STRUCTURED FINANCIAL
SERVICES-PROF; U.S. NATIONAL
BANK ASSOCIATION; U.S. ROF III
LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2015-1;
BARRETT, DAFFIN, FRAPPIER,
TREADER AND WEISS LLP; BDF LAW
GROUP; BEN MORRIS; TYRONE
BELL; JEN JOLLS; MICHAEL
SCHUSTER; VIKKI M. PALUMBO; E.
STEWART; TANYA MCCULLAH;
ERICA JONES; CLAYTON GOFF;
TALISHA WALLACE; YOMARI
QUINTANILLA; DAYNA BUCARO;
MICHAEL MCGEE; TITLE 365; DOES
1–10 INCLUSIVE,

ORDER INSTRUCTING
PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN
OPPOSITION BRIEF NO LATER
THAN JUNE 29, 2015

Defendants.

27

On March 26, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and set a hearing for

28

June 29, 2015. (ECF No. 37.) Local Rule 7-9 provides that all opposition papers

1

shall be filed with the court and served on each party at least twenty-one days before

2

the date designated for hearing of the motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. Local Rule 7-12

3

provides that the “failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the

4

deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the Motion.” C.D. Cal.

5

L.R. 7-12.

6

According to the Local Rules, Plaintiffs were required to file an opposition to

7

Defendants Motion to Dismiss no later than June 8, 2015. This date came and went

8

without an opposition. On June 15, 2015, a week after the deadline, Plaintiffs filed a

9

First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 52.) The Court notes that the First Amended

10

Complaint is nearly a word-for-word recitation of the original Complaint and does

11

almost nothing to address the substantive arguments in Defendants’ Motion to

12

Dismiss. Without any substantive changes, it would appear that Plaintiffs filed the

13

First Amended Complaint to needlessly delay this litigation.

14

Since the First Amended Complaint is nearly identical to the original

15

Complaint, the Court will not require Defendants to file another Motion to Dismiss.

16

The Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37) will remain a live pleading

17

subject to this Court’s adjudication and applies in full force to Plaintiffs’ First

18

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52).

19

The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs Lori Mannarino and Sam Treihaft to file

20

a written opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss no later than 5:00 p.m. on

21

Monday, June 29, 2015. Plaintiffs do not need to address Defendants’ arguments

22

regarding quiet title and slander of title. Since Plaintiffs have already missed one

23

deadline to file an opposition, the failure to comply with this Order will result in a

24

dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ghazali v. Moran,

25

46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is proper

26

ground for dismissal.”). Defendants shall file a reply no later than 5:00 p.m. on

27

Monday, July 6, 2015. Defendants’ reply shall clearly apprise the Court of which

28

defendants join the Motion to Dismiss. Both the opposition and the reply shall be in

2

1

compliance with the Local Rules. The Court will issue an order in an expedited

2

manner once briefing is complete. The Court will not conduct a hearing.

3

The Court’s Order to Show Cause issued to Plaintiffs on June 6, 2015, still

4

remains in effect and will only be discharged upon an appropriate filing from

5

Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 48.) All other hearings in this matter are vacated.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

June 22, 2015

9
10
11

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3