Pearson v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al

Filing 34

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S AUGUST 12, 2011 LETTER AS NOTICE OF APPEAL (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VEANA G. SILVA-PEARSON,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 11-01491 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S
AUGUST 12, 2011 LETTER AS NOTICE
OF APPEAL

v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, et al.,

12

Defendants.

/

13
14

On July 5, 2011 this Court granted defendant BAC Home Loan Servicing’s motion to dismiss

15

this case. The Court found, that as a matter of law, plaintiff could not maintain her action asserting BAC

16

breached plaintiff’s loan modification agreement where plaintiff’s own evidence demonstrated that she

17

did not make the modification payments on time and in the correct amounts. See Docket No. 27.

18

Judgment was entered and copies of the Court’s order and judgment were mailed to Ms. Pearson on July

19

7, 2011. Docket Nos. 27 &28 (Attachment 1, proofs of service).

20

On August 12, 2011, the Court received a letter from Ms. Pearson, asserting that she did not

21

receive notice of the Court’s order and judgment until July 26, 2011. Ms. Pearson requested that the

22

court “give me an appeal on your ruling and give me my day in court.” Docket No. 31 at 2.

23

The Court found good cause and construed Ms. Pearson’s letter as a request to extend her time

24

to file a notice of appeal, and gave Ms. Pearson additional time to file her notice of appeal. See Docket

25

No. 32.1 On September 9, 2011, Ms. Pearson again wrote the Court seeking additional time to file a

26

notice of appeal in light of significant medical conditions and hospitalizations. Docket No.33.

27
1

28

To the extent the August 12, 2011, pleading could be construed as a motion for
reconsideration, that motion was DENIED. Id.

1

The Court finds that it is appropriate to construe Ms. Pearson’s August 12, 2011 pleading –

2

Docket No. 31 – as a request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and her actual notice of

3

appeal. Therefore, the Court holds that Ms. Pearson filed her notice of appeal on August 12, 2011.

4

The clerk shall process Ms. Pearson’s notice of appeal as if timely filed on August 12, 2011.

5

Unless Ms. Pearson moves for and is granted permission to pursue her appeal in forma pauperis

6

(see Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), requiring motion and affidavit to be filed in District

7

Court), Ms. Pearson will have to pay the $455.00 filing fee for her appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Ms.

8

Pearson is warned that if she does not pay the filing fee, her appeal will be dismissed.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: September 9, 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2