Jesus Lopez, et al v. Central Loan Administration and Reporting, et al

Filing 14

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. On February 2, 2017, the Court entered an Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and OSC re Dismissal and Sanctions (the "Dismissal Order"). In the same Dism issal Order, the Court further ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be granted leave to amend; why they should not be sanctioned for failure to participate in preparing the Rule 26(f) status report, and why the action should not be di smissed for failure to prosecute. The Court set Monday, February 13, 2017 as the due date for Plaintiffs' response. The Court waited a further week out of courtesy to Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs have filed nothing. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. See minute order for further details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (jy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 16-09587-MWF (JPRx)
Date: February 21, 2017
Title:
Jesus Lopez -v- Central Loan Administration and Reporting, et al.
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez

Court Reporter:
Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE

On February 2, 2017, the Court entered an Order Granting Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss and OSC re Dismissal and Sanctions (the “Dismissal Order”). (Docket No.
13). The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that not only did
Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the motion operate as consent to its granting, but also that
Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the merits. In the same Dismissal Order, the Court further
ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why they should not be granted leave to amend; why
they should not be sanctioned for failure to participate in preparing the Rule 26(f)
status report, and why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The
Dismissal Order explained that failure to respond timely would result in dismissal of
the action with prejudice.
The Court set Monday, February 13, 2017 as the due date for Plaintiffs’
response. The Court waited a further week out of courtesy to Plaintiffs. Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs have filed nothing.
Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) (permitting the Court to dismiss an action for failure to comply with the Court’s
orders); Local Rule 41-5 (stating that failure to respond to the noticed call of any action
or proceeding may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute).

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 16-09587-MWF (JPRx)
Date: February 21, 2017
Title:
Jesus Lopez -v- Central Loan Administration and Reporting, et al.
This Order shall constitute notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58. Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to
treat this order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2