Capodiece et al v. Wells Fargo Bank et al
Filing
19
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE re 18 Renotice motion hearing, filed by Wells Fargo Bank (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
MICHAEL CAPODIECE AND TERRY
CAPODIECE,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 13-00032 WHA
ORDER RE MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MOTION
TO STRIKE
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK
SOUTHWEST, NA f/k/a WACHOVIA
MORTGAGE FAB f/k/a WORLD SAVINGS
BANK FSB, and DOES 1-5,
Defendant.
/
18
19
On January 10, 2013, defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A., successor by merger
20
with Wells Fargo Bank Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings
21
Bank, FSB (“Wells Fargo”) (erroneously sued as “Wells Fargo Bank, National Association an
22
FDIC insured corporation”) filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike portions of
23
plaintiffs’ complaint. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, plaintiffs’ oppositions or statements of non-
24
opposition to the motions were due on January 24. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the
25
motion to dismiss but have failed to respond to the motion to strike.
26
On January 24, the action was reassigned to the undersigned judge. Defendant has
27
renoticed its motions for hearing on April 11. Accordingly, the following briefing schedule is
28
hereby set: Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to strike is due by MARCH 8. Defendant’s reply
1
briefs in support of its motions, if any, are due by MARCH 15. A hearing is scheduled for APRIL
2
11 on both motions.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: March 4, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?