Costelo v. Pro30 Funding et al

Filing 20

ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 05/25/11 ORDERING that the 07/23/11 hearing on the dfts' 11 , 12 Motions to Dismiss is VACATED and RECOMMENDING that the 11 , 12 Motions to Dismiss be granted and this action dismissed. Objections to these F&Rs due w/i 14 days; referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CELSO COSTELO,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. CIV 2:10-cv-2049-KJM-JFM (PS)

vs.
PRO30 FUNDING, et al.,

14

ORDER AND

Defendants.

15

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/

16

This action was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).

17

On January 24, 2011, defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. filed a motion to

18

dismiss; and on January 27, 2011, defendant Placer Title Company filed a motion to dismiss.

19

Local Rule 230(c) provides that opposition to the granting of a motion must be

20

filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. The Rule further provides that “[n]o party

21

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral arguments if written opposition to

22

the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Id.

23

Plaintiff has not filed opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss. Plaintiff’s

24

failure to oppose should therefore be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the

25

motion.

26

/////
1

1
2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on defendants’ motions
to dismiss, set for July 23, 2011, is vacated; and

3

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

4

1. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.’s January 24, 2011

5

motion to dismiss be granted;

6
7

2. Defendant Placer Title Company’s January 27, 2011 motion to dismiss be
granted; and

8

3. This action be dismissed.

9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

10

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

11

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

12

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

13

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

14

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

15

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

16

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

DATED: May 25, 2011.

18
19
20
21

/014;cost2049.46.dm

22
23
24
25
26
2