Martinez v. Bank of America Corporation et al

Filing 19

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 17 Request to Consider Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/16/2012. (Bradley, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
ROBERT ROY MARTINEZ,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

1:11-cv-2061 AWI GSA
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO CONSIDER OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS
(Document 17)

16
17
On December 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Bank of America (“BAC”)
18
Corporation, BAC Home Loans Servicing, Countrywide Financial Corporation, America’s
19
Wholesale Lender, Quality Loan Service Corporation, the Mortgage Electronic Registration
20
System (“MERS”), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation alleging unlawful
21
mortgage practices and the unlawful foreclosure of his home. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff was granted in
22
forma pauperis status and was advised that his complaint would be screened by the Court in due
23
course. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 15, 2011, naming
24
the same Defendants and alleging similar causes of action. (Doc. 3).
25
On February 16, 2012, Defendants, Bank of America, MERS, and Federal Home Loan
26
Mortgage Corporation (“Defendnats”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 10). The matter was set
27
28

1

1

for a hearing on April 6, 2012. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The

2

Court took the matter under submission on March 30, 2012 and vacated the hearing.

3

On April 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed an opposition, as well as the instant motion requesting

4

that the Court permit his untimely filing. (Doc. 17). In the motion, Plaintiff indicates that he was

5

not able to file the opposition timely due to health concerns. In support of the request, he

6

attached a letter from the Social Security Administration indicating that he has a continuing

7

disablity.

8
9
10

Given that Plaintiff is proceeding pro per, the Court will permit the late filing. Plaintiff is
advised that he must follow the Local Rules of this Court. Accordingly, late filings in the future
will be looked upon with disfavor.

11

Defendants shall file any Reply to Plaintiff’s opposition no later than April 27, 2012.

12

After April 27, 2012, the matter will be taken under submission and will not be scheduled for a

13

hearing unless the Court determines it is necessary.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
6i0kij

April 16, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2