Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc et al v. Timothy J. Johnston

Filing 33

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell. Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court should not grant Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend by Interlineation. Both (1) Defendant'sresponse to this Orde r and (2) Defendant's opposition to the Motion to Amend byInterlineation, if any, shall be filed by no later than Monday, November 16, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good cause for Defendant's failure to timely oppose. Defendant's failure to file an opposition by this deadline may result in the granting of Plaintiffs' Motion. (rfi)

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-04853-BRO (FFMx)

Title

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC ET AL V.
TIMOTHY J. JOHNSTON

Date

November 12, 2015

Present: The Honorable

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL, United States District Judge

Renee A. Fisher

Not Present

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE
Pending before the Court are two motions: (1) Defendant Timothy Johnston’s
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”),
MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., and The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New
York as Trustee for Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II Trust 2006-AR8,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR8’s (“BNYM”) (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint, (Dkt. No. 28); and, (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Amend by Interlineation, (Dkt. No. 30). Both motions are currently set for hearing on
November 23, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. (See Dkt. No. 31.)
Under the Central District’s Local Rules, a party must oppose a motion at least
twenty-one (21) days prior to the scheduled hearing date. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9.
Accordingly, Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend by Interlineation, if
any, was due no later than November 2, 2015. To date, Defendant has filed no
opposition; instead, Defendant filed a Reply in support of his Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. No. 32.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12,
the failure to file an opposition “may be deemed consent to the granting . . . of the
motion.” See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Court
should not grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend by Interlineation. Both (1) Defendant’s
response to this Order and (2) Defendant’s opposition to the Motion to Amend by
Interlineation, if any,1 shall be filed by no later than Monday, November 16, 2015, at

1

Defendant may instead choose to file a Notice of Non-Opposition.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

LINK:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-04853-BRO (FFMx)

Title

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC ET AL V.
TIMOTHY J. JOHNSTON

Date

November 12, 2015

4:00 p.m. An appropriate response will include reasons demonstrating good cause for
Defendant’s failure to timely oppose. Defendant’s failure to file an opposition by this
deadline may result in the granting of Plaintiffs’ Motion.
:

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of
Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

rf

Page 2 of 2