Breining et al v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 9/24/14 ORDERING that Plaintiffs' REQUEST to continue the hearing date and/or to file a late opposition 22 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 FRED BREINING and CATHY BREINING, Plaintiffs, 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-2441-TLN-DAD ORDER v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; and DOES 1–20, inclusive 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’ request for a continuance to file a 19 late opposition. On July 9, 2014, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ 20 complaint. (ECF No. 15.) That order specified that Defendants had 14 days from entry of the 21 order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs then filed a late amended complaint on July 28, 22 2014. (ECF No. 16.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 4, 2014. (ECF No. 17.) 23 Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2014, this Court 24 determined that oral argument would not be of assistance and submitted the matter on the briefs. 25 (ECF No. 21.) Subsequently, on September 5, 2014, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a declaration 26 stating she was not aware that a motion to dismiss had been filed. Counsel for Plaintiffs requests 27 a continuance of the hearing date in order to file a late opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF 28 No. 22.) 1 1 The email address for Plaintiffs’ counsel appears on the Court’s distribution list for 2 notices of activity in the instant case. Additionally, the Court’s previous dismissal order (ECF 3 No. 15) specified that a motion to dismiss was due 21 days after filing of an amended complaint; 4 thus, Plaintiffs were on notice of a pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint was 5 filed late. The Court’s initial review of the amended complaint indicates Plaintiffs have not 6 responded to the deficiencies highlighted by this Court in its previous dismissal order. Plaintiffs’ 7 counsel has not attached a late opposition to her declaration. 8 Plaintiffs’ request to continue the hearing date and/or to file a late opposition is DENIED. 9 10 Dated: September 24, 2014 11 12 13 14 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?