Brooks v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 4/8/2011. Case Management Statement due by 5/6/2011. Case Management Conference set for 5/13/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 3/21/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2011)

Download PDF
Brooks v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. et al Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 MARIA BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE, ET AL., Defendants. / 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Maria Brooks filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo on November 1, 2010, and filed an amended complaint on December 2, 2010. The First Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., and state law claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of loan contracts, violation of Civil Code Section 2923.5, wrongful foreclosure, negligence, predatory lending in violation of Financial Code Sections 4970-4979.8, and misrepresentation. Defendants American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. removed the action to this Court on January 3, 2011. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the First Amended Complaint and noticed the motion for hearing on April 1, 2011. Plaintiff's opposition brief or statement of non-opposition was due by March 11, 2011. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition or response to the motion to dismiss. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE No. C 11-00006 JSW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff Maria Brooks is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, by April 8, 2011, why the motion to dismiss pending against her should not be granted in light of Plaintiff's failure to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition. Plaintiff's failure to file a timely response to this show cause Order will result in a dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). In light of the foregoing, the April 1, 2011 hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss is VACATED. The hearing will be reset by the Court in a separate order if necessary. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case management conference set for April 15, 2011 is hereby continued to May 13, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: March 21, 2011 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?