Sargent v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A et al

Filing 23

ORDER RESETTING DEADLINES, HEARING, AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., The Bank of New York, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A, 14 Renotice motion hearing, filed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., The Bank of New York, WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Series 2006-AR12 Trust, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Signed by Judge Alsup on 7/2/2013. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CARYL A. SARGENT,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 13-01690 WHA

v.

16

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.;
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
(“MERS”); THE BANK OF NEW YORK;
and WAMU MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES
2006-AR12 TRUST,

17

ORDER RESETTING
DEADLINES, HEARING,
AND CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

Defendants.

14
15

18

/

19

On May 9, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. As plaintiff failed to file a

20

response, an order issued setting a briefing schedule pursuant to which plaintiff’s response was

21

due by June 13. That date passed and no response was received; accordingly, plaintiff was

22

ordered to show cause why the motion to dismiss should not be granted.

23

Plaintiff has now submitted a response stating that because she is proceeding pro se, she

24

did not understand that she had to file a response to the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 21). She

25

further requests ten days to file a response. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a

26

response to the motion to dismiss is granted. All parties should be aware, however, that the

27

deadlines set by this Court and the federal and local rules must be followed by all litigants,

28

whether or not they are represented by counsel. In the future, such failures to meet filing
deadlines may not be excused. Plaintiff must file her response to the motion to dismiss by NOON

1

ON JULY 11.

Defendant’s reply brief, if any, is due by NOON ON JULY 18. The hearing on

2

defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby reset for JULY 25 AT 8:00 A.M. In the interest of

3

efficiency, the case management conference currently scheduled for July 11 is hereby reset for

4

JULY 25 AT 8:00 A.M. Defendant’s motion to appear telephonically at the case management

5

conference is DENIED AS MOOT; however, the parties should be aware that no requests for

6

telephonic appearance will be granted.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: July 2, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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