Martinez v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 23

ORDER RE: 19 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 2/9/2012. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

RAFAEL A. MARTINEZ,

10
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.

14

Defendants.

15
16

) Case No. 11-4624 SC
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On February 1, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause

17

why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute

18

after Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss.

19

ECF No. 19.

20

declaration explaining that his failure to file an opposition was

21

due to a mistake and that recent health problems have inhibited his

22

ability to work.

23

that, with the Court's permission, he is prepared to file an

24

opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss immediately.

On February 8, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel filed a

ECF No. 22.

Plaintiff's counsel also stated

Id.

25

While the Court does not condone such failure to comply with

26

Court deadlines, it finds that the actions of Plaintiff's counsel

27

do not warrant dismissal of the action at this time.

28

the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file his response to Defendant's

Accordingly,

1

motion to dismiss within four calendar days of this Order.

2

to do so will result in dismissal of this action for want of

3

prosecution and failure to comply with a Court order.

4

Civil Local Rule 7-3, Defendant may file a reply to the opposition

5

not more than seven days after the opposition has been filed.

6

Defendant's motion to dismiss is submitted for decision on the

7

papers, no hearing or oral argument is required.

8

Management Conference scheduled for February 24, 2012 is hereby

9

continued to March 30, 2012.

Failure

Pursuant to

The Case

The parties are to file one Joint

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Case Management Conference Statement seven days prior to the

11

conference.

12
13

The Court warns Plaintiff that failure to comply with Court
deadlines in the future may result in dismissal of this action.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated:

February 9, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2