Knapp v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
Filing
60
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/16/12 APPOINTING Attorney Kresta Nora Daly for the limited purpose of opposing defendants' motion to dismiss as to Floyd Knapp. Appointed counsel shall notify Sujean Park if she has any questions re lated to the appointment; defendants' 29 Motion to Dismiss shall be heard by the undersigned; plaintiff shall file opposition briefing by 4/30/12; defendants shall file opposition briefing by 5/7/12; motion hearing set for 5/18/12 before the u ndersigned; the clerk of court is DIRECTED to serve a courtesy copy of this order on plaintiff at his email address, fhknapp@cwnet.com; the court DECLINES to adopt 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; and DENYING AS MOOT 52 Motion to Adopt the Findings and Recommendations. (cc: plaintiff; Sujean Park). (Meuleman, A) Modified on 4/17/2012 (Meuleman, A).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
FLOYD KNAPP,
Plaintiff,
11
12
CIV-S-10-2889 KJM GGH PS
vs.
13
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
__________________________________/
16
ORDER
In this case removed from state court, plaintiff claims wrongful foreclosure and
17
sues to quiet title. In the last several months, plaintiff has been proceeding pro se. In June 2011,
18
the court entered a preliminary injunction, restraining defendants from seeking to enforce an
19
eviction order on the condition that plaintiff pay $600 per month and file a statement with the
20
court confirming timely payment. Plaintiff has filed the required statements each month since
21
the preliminary injunction order was entered.
22
On September 30, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
23
recommending granting defendant’s motion to dismiss in light of plaintiff’s lack of prosecution
24
in response to the motion. The findings and recommendations were served on the parties and
25
contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within
26
fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
1
1
§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case.
2
Having carefully reviewed the file, the court does not find fault with the substance of the
3
findings and recommendations themselves. However, for the reasons set forth below the court
4
declines to adopt the findings and recommendations.
5
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on June 17, 2011. (ECF 29.) Plaintiff
6
failed to appear at the hearing or otherwise oppose defendants’ motion. As a result the magistrate
7
judge recommended dismissing the action for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. P.
8
41(b). Plaintiff timely objected that he never received notice of the motion and therefore was
9
unable to oppose it. (ECF 37.) The magistrate judge then vacated his previously issued findings
10
and recommendations and allowed plaintiff fourteen days to file an opposition. (ECF 39.) Again,
11
plaintiff failed to respond. Again, the magistrate judge recommended the action be dismissed.
12
(ECF 41.) And again, plaintiff filed a timely objection claiming he did not receive the order
13
directing him to file an opposition. (ECF 42.) Although at one point, plaintiff had requested
14
service of court orders and other documents by e-mail to avoid problems he described with his
15
rural mail service, this request was not addressed or granted. (ECF 37.)
This court set the matter for a status conference to determine whether plaintiff
16
17
would appear, providing notice of the status to plaintiff by e-mail. Plaintiff appeared at the
18
status and represented that he intends to oppose defendants’ motion and also voiced confusion
19
over when his opposition should have been filed. Defendants were represented at the status by
20
Thomas Van, who appeared telephonically and opposed providing plaintiff with any additional
21
time to respond to the motion to dismiss.
22
In the interests of justice and in light of the court’s strong preference to resolve
23
cases on the merits, the court will allow plaintiff additional time to oppose defendant’s motion to
24
dismiss. Moreover, in the interests of having the motion decided on the merits in timely fashion,
25
the court finds appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of opposing defendants’ motion is
26
warranted.
2
1
2
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, the court orders as follows:
1.
Kresta N. Daly, Barth Tozer & Daly, Rea Building, 431 I Street, Suite 201,
3
Sacramento, California 95814 is appointed to represent plaintiff for the limited
4
purpose of opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss;
5
2.
6
Appointed counsel shall notify Sujean Park at 916-930-4278, or via email at
spark@caed.uscourts.gov if she has any questions related to the appointment;
7
3.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss shall be heard by the undersigned;
8
4
Plaintiff shall file opposition briefing by April 30, 2012;
9
5.
Defendants shall file a reply brief, if any, by May 7, 2012;
10
6.
Hearing on defendants’ motion is set for May 18, 2012, before the undersigned;
11
7.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a courtesy copy of this order on
12
13
plaintiff at his email address, fhknapp@cwnet.com;
8.
14
15
16
The court declines to adopt the September 30, 2011, findings and
recommendations; and
9.
Defendants’ motion to adopt the findings and recommendations is denied as
moot.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
DATED: April 16, 2012.
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?