Gusenkov et al v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA et al

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Plaintiff's declaration is due 2/5/10. (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/27/2010: # 1 cs) (ys, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA, et al., Defendants. / YLADMIR GUSENKOV, et al., Plaintiffs, No. C 09-4747 SI ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA On October 6, 2009, defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. removed this case from state court to this Court. On October 15, 2009, several defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (Docket No. 4). The case was then reassigned to the undersigned judge, and on October 27, 2009 defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 11). The motion is scheduled for a hearing on February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion was due no later than January 15, 2010. Plaintiffs, who are representing themselves without counsel, have not filed an opposition, nor have plaintiffs taken any action in this case since it was removed to this Court. Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiffs to file a declaration by February 5, 2010 stating why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The February 5, 2010 hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss is VACATED. The Court will reschedule the hearing on the motion if necessary. Failure to comply with these deadlines will result in dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 25, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

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?