Cruz v. Central Mortgage Company et al

Filing 20

DISMISSAL ORDER. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on December 3, 2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2012)

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
DISMISSAL ORDER

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

Plaintiff Irma Cruz proceeding pro se filed this civil action challenging the foreclosure of

19
20

certain real property at 17808 Vierra Avenue Cerritos, California.1
Shortly after filing the action, on October 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

21
22

Petition with the Central District of California Bankruptcy Court. See Case No. 2:12-bk-43633-RK

23

(C.D. Cal. Bankr.). Defendant Central Mortgage Company noted the existence of the Chapter 7

24

proceeding in the Motion to Dismiss filed October 18, 2012. (Dkt. No. 10.) On October 25, 2012, the

25

Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this action was not subject to the automatic stay

26

provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) in light of Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition. (Dkt. No. 13)

27
28

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States
magistrate judge. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 9 & 19.)

1

Plaintiff did not response to the Court’s order; however, Plaintiff’s Chapter 7 action was dismissed on

2

October 29, 2012 for failure to file the requisite documents. On November 14, 2012, the Court

3

vacated the Order to Show Cause and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to

4

Dismiss on or before November 28, 2012. (Dkt. No. 17.) The Court’s order warned that failure to

5

comply could result in the automatic dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. To date,

6

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order or otherwise communicated with the Court.

7

8
9

Accordingly, this action is dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders and 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: December 3, 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