Crawford v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc et al

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO STANLEY BURNETT GRANVILLE AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 2/28/2013 at 09:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 2/21/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/14/2013. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

TY CRAWFORD, et al.,

13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.

15
16
17
18

Case No.: C-12-04116 JSC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
STANLEY BURNETT GRANVILLE
AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE
FUNDING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

19
20

On August 6, 2012, Plaintiffs, who are represented by counsel, filed this home mortgage

21

lawsuit against Defendants Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and

22

Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (Dkt. No. 1.) An initial Case Management

23

Conference (“CMC”) was scheduled for November 29, 2012. The CMC, however, was moved to

24

December 20, 2012 after Plaintiffs requested a continuance, citing the need for additional time “for

25

out of court mediation proceedings between named plaintiffs and defendant.” (See Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.)

26

On December 19, 2012, Plaintiffs again requested a continuance of the CMC, repeating the assertion

27

that additional time was needed “for out of court mediation proceedings between named plaintiffs

28

and defendant.” (Dkt. No. 13.) The Court continued the CMC to January 24, 2013. (Dkt. No. 14.)

1

At the January 24, 2013 CMC, at least one of the Plaintiffs was present, but Plaintiffs’ counsel failed

2

to appear.

3

On January 25, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), ordering Plaintiffs

4

to show cause as to (1) why Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to appear at the January 24, 2013 CMC, and

5

(2) why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply

6

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which generally requires that a defendant be served

7

within 120 days after the complaint is filed. (See Dkt. No. 16.) The Court set a hearing on the OSC

8

for February 14, 2013 at 9:00 a.m., and required Plaintiffs’ counsel to appear in person. Plaintiffs

9

were further ordered to file a written response to the OSC by February 7, 2013. The Court warned

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

that failure to comply with the OSC may result in dismissal of the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs did not submit a written response to the OSC and Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to

12

appear at the hearing on the OSC or to notify the Court that he would not be appearing. As a result,

13

the Court DISMISSES the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). In addition, due to

14

Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and his apparent failure to prosecute

15

his clients’ case, the Court HEREBY ORDERS Plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause as to why he

16

should not be referred to the Court’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct pursuant to Civil

17

Local Rule 11-6(a)(1).

18

The Court sets a hearing on the Order to Show Cause for February 28, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

19

Plaintiffs’ counsel must appear in person. Plaintiffs’ counsel is further ordered to file a written

20

response to this Order by February 21, 2013.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: February 14, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2