Carino, et al., v. Standard Pacific Corp, et al.,

Filing 62

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/2/2017 LIFTING the stay as to Homecomings Financial Services LLC; DISMISSING this action with prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 DENA CRISOTOMO CARINO; ALLAN CRISTOPHER DIWA, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER v. STANDARD PACIFIC CORP; STANDARD PACIFIC MORTGAGE, INC. fka FAMILY HOME LENDING, INC.; CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., HSBC BANK USA, as Trustee of J.P.Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A-1 Mortgage Pass Through Certificates without recourse; all persons currently unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in the property described in this complaint as the Trust Property adverse to that claimed by Plaintiffs, and DOES ONE through ONE HUNDRED, inclusive, Defendants. 23 24 25 No. 2:09-cv-02005-KJM-AC In June 2014, the court dismissed all remaining defendants in this case except Homecomings Services, LLC1 (“Homecomings”), which at the time was subject to an automatic 26 27 28 1 In their recent notice, Homecomings asserted they were erroneously sued as “Homecomings Financial Services, LLC,” and that they are properly named “Homecomings Financial, LLC.” Notice at 2. 1 1 bankruptcy stay. ECF Nos. 24, 57–59. In February 2016, Homecomings filed a notice of the 2 bankruptcy court’s order requiring plaintiffs to “take all appropriate actions to dismiss their 3 monetary claims against [Homecomings] with prejudice.” Notice at 2, ECF No. 60; id. Ex. A 4 (Bankruptcy Order). This court then ordered plaintiffs to show cause why the court should not 5 lift the stay as to Homecomings and dismiss the action for plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute their 6 case. ECF No. 60. Although that response was due on July 5, 2017, plaintiffs have not 7 responded to the court’s order to show cause as of the date of this order. As a result, dismissal for 8 plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute their case is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Hells Canyon 9 Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining a court 10 11 may, sua sponte, dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b)). Accordingly, the court LIFTS the stay as to Homecomings and DISMISSES this 12 action with prejudice. This case is now closed. 13 This order resolves ECF No. 60. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 DATED: August 2, 2017. 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?