Vass v. JP Morgan Chase, NA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Hon. William Alsup granting 6 Motion to Dismiss.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/19/2012: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
No. C 12-04094 WHA
Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., erroneously sued as JP Morgan Chase, NA,
filed a motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff Ira Vass’ complaint on September 4, 2012. Pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition thereto was due by
September 18. None was filed. By order dated October 4, plaintiff was ordered to show cause
why her claims against defendant should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute (Dkt. No. 17).
Plaintiff’s response was due by October 15. As no response was received, a second order to
show cause issued, requiring a response by October 29 (Dkt. No. 20). Finally, a third order to
show cause issued on October 31, requiring a response by November 15 (Dkt. No. 21). All three
orders to show cause warned that if no response was received, the motion to dismiss may be
granted. Plaintiff has yet to file any response to the orders to show cause or to defendant’s
motion to dismiss.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss has been pending for over two months. Due to plaintiff’s
complete failure to respond, despite numerous orders requiring her to do so, the motion to
dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 19, 2012.
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?