Cruz v. Central Mortgage Company et al

Filing 17

ORDER REGARDING AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Set Deadlines as to 10 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Responses due by 11/28/2012. Replies due by 12/5/2012. Motion Hearing set for 12/13/2012 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom F, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on November 14, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

IRMA T. CRUZ,
Plaintiff,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No.: 12-cv-4542 JSC
ORDER REGARDING AUTOMATIC
STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)

v.

12
13
14
15
16

CENTRAL MORTGAGE COMPANY, d.b.a.
CENTRAL MORTGAGE LOAN
SERVICING COMPANY, and OLD
REPUBLIC DEFAULT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES,
Defendants.

17
18

On October 25, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 13) as to why this

19
20

action was not subject to the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) in light of Plaintiff’s

21

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition filed with the Central District of California Bankruptcy Court on

22

October 4, 2012. See Case No. 2:12-bk-43633-RK (C.D. Cal. Bankr.). Plaintiff has not responded to

23

the Court’s Order to Show cause and the deadline to do so was November 8, 2012.1 However, a

24

review of the docket in Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 proceeding indicates that the action was dismissed on

25

October 29, 2012 for failure to file the requisite documents. See Case No. 2:12-bk-43633-RK (C.D.

26
27
28

1

Defendant Central Mortgage Company filed a response contending that the 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) did
not apply. (Dkt. No. 14.)

1

Cal. Bankr.) (Dkt. No. 9.) The bankruptcy court’s dismissal order specifically notes that the

2

automatic stay is no longer in effect.

3

Accordingly, the Court’s Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 13) is vacated. Plaintiff’s

4

opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10) is due November 28, 2012. Defendants’

5

reply, if any, is due December 5, 2012. The Court will hear oral argument on December 13, 2012 at

6

9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

7

8
9

Failure to comply with this Order and file an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss may result
in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Dated: November 14, 2012

_______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

2