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
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?