Concepcion v. World Savings, F.S.B. et al

Filing 12

ORDER Signed by Mag. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 2/8/2010 Granting re 4 Motion to Dismiss & Dismissing Case Without Prejudice. (edllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2010)

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. WORLD SAVINGS FINANCIAL, FSB, nka WACHOVIA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; WACHOVIA FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., A WELLS FARGO COMPANY; WELLS FARGO N.A., et al. Defendants. / ANITA CONCEPCION, Plaintiff, No. C-10-CV-00401 EDL ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 4, 2010, Defendants Wachovia Financial Services, Inc., Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (formerly known as World Savings Bank, FSB) and Wells Fargo N.A. filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's complaint and Motion to Strike portions of the complaint. These motions were set for hearing on March 16, 2010. Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff's opposition briefs were due twenty-one days before the hearing date but Plaintiff failed to file any opposition by that date. Further, Plaintiff had failed to either consent to this Court's jurisdiction or decline and request reassignment to a district court judge, despite repeated requests to do so by Court staff. Therefore this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or why the motions should not be granted as unopposed. Plaintiff was ordered to respond by no later than March 4, 2010 or the Court would recommend dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Order to Show Cause also warned Plaintiff that if she sought to file oppositions to Defendants' motions, she must demonstrate good cause for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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

her failure to comply with the Local Rules and file a request to file late opposition briefs by March 4, 2010. On March 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, but failed to file any opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike or to offer any explanation for her failure to comply with local rules or request to late file any opposition. Because Plaintiff has entirely failed to oppose the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, despite ample opportunity to do so, the Court Orders this case DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2010 ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE United States Magistrate Judge

2