Arturo Ramos v. DLI Properties, LLC et al

Filing 66

MINUTE ORDER (1) DISMISSING Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint #59 and (4) VACATING the hearing on May 15, 2017 (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: In light of Plaintiffs failure to oppose the present Motions to Dismiss, and the fact that Plaintiff has previously delayed this matter through his failure to timely prosecute,2 the Court, on its own motion DISMISSES the FAC for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (stating courts have an inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). The clerk is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ad)

Download PDF
JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. EDCV 16-01257 JGB(KKx) Date May 9, 2017 Title Arturo Ramos v. DLI Properties, LLC, et al. Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MAYNOR GALVEZ Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present Proceedings: Order (1) DISMISSING Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 59) and (4) VACATING the hearing on May 15, 2017 (IN CHAMBERS) Plaintiff Arturo Ramos (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against DLI Properties, LLC (“DLI”), Nussbaum, APC (“Nussbaum”), Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. (“RCS”), Quality Loan Service Corp. (“Quality”), and Does 1–10 (collectively, “Defendants”) on June 14, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) Then, on March 17, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and filed the FAC that had been lodged with the Court.1 (Dkt. Nos. 58, 59.) The FAC added a number of defendants. (See FAC at 1.) On March 31, 2017, Defendants Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”), RCS, and The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. No. 60.) Subsequently, on April 4, 2017, Defendants DLI and Nussbaum filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. No. 62.) Plaintiff failed to timely file an opposition memorandum to either of the Motions. In light of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the present Motions to Dismiss, and the fact that Plaintiff has previously delayed this matter through his failure to timely prosecute,2 the Court, on For a more detailed account of the procedural background see the Court’s March 17, 2017 Order. (Dkt. No. 58.) 1 2 Plaintiff failed to timely oppose several motions to dismiss by the original defendants, instead filing a Motion for Leave to File the FAC. Additionally, Plaintiff failed to timely file his Page 1 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG its own motion DISMISSES the FAC for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (stating courts have an inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion). The clerk is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. reply memorandums in support of his Motion for Leave to File, filing them only after the Court continued the hearing on the matter, along with objections to the defendants’ oppositions. (See Dkt. Nos. 39-42, 44-46.) Page 2 of 2 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?