Ahmadyar v. First Horizon Home Loans, et al

Filing 28

ORDER and RULE 4(M) NOTICE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/13/2009: Status Conference reset for 11/16/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. (Suttles, J)

1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PATRICIA AHMADYAR, an individual, AHMAD AHMADYAR, an individual, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) v. ) ) FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS, a Texas ) corporation and a division of First) Tennessee Bank National ) Association, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 2:09-cv-02063-GEB-EFB ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE and RULE 4(M) NOTICE

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for October 19, 2009 is continued to November 16, 2009, commencing at 9:00 a.m. This continuance is because the Status Report, which was filed

one day late at the risk of invoking sanctions proceedings, reveals this case is not ready to be scheduled. That status report includes Yet only A joint

the statement: "all named defendants have been served."

Defendant First Horizon Home Loans filed the status report.

status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the November 16, 2009 status conference. Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any defendant not served with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule will be dismissed as a defendant in this action, unless Plaintiff files a proof of service or shows "good cause" for the failure to serve 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

defendant within this prescribed period on or before 4:00 p.m. on October 19, 2009. If Plaintiff has served Defendant Quality Loan Service, Plaintiff shall explain in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on October 19, 2009 how this action is being prosecuted against Defendant Quality Loan Service, and if it is not being prosecuted, why Defendant Quality Loan Service should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution. Lastly, the Doe defendants are dismissed, since timely justification has not been filed warranting Doe defendant allegations remaining in this case. dismissal. Dated: October 13, 2009 The caption is changed to reflect this

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

2