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.)

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