Rodriguez et al v. Nationstar Mortgage et al

Filing 20

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND VACATING HEARING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/10/2014. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2014). (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/10/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EMMANUEL and JOYCE RODRIGUEZ, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC and THE WOLF FIRM LAW CORPORATION, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND VACATING HEARING Defendants. / 16 17 No. C 14-03259 WHA This foreclosure action was filed by pro se plaintiffs Emmanuel and Joyce Rodriguez in 18 July 2014. The complaint alleges, inter alia, violations of California Business & Professions 19 Code Section 17200, California Civil Code Section 3412, 15 U.S.C. 1641(g) and 1692(e), and 20 wrongful foreclosure. 21 On August 22, 2014, defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed a motion to dismiss for 22 failure to state a claim under FRCP 12(b)(6) contending, inter alia, that plaintiffs’ claims were 23 barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel because plaintiffs had previously failed to disclose 24 the claims in a 2013 bankruptcy proceeding. 25 Plaintiffs failed to timely oppose Nationstar’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs did not file an 26 opposition to defendant’s motion by the September 5 deadline as required by Civil Local Rule 27 7-3(a). An order was issued on September 9 apprising plaintiffs of their failure to file an 28 opposition. The order also extended plaintiffs’ opposition deadline to September 19, and stated that a failure to respond to Nationstar’s motion may result in a dismissal of this action. 1 Plaintiffs then failed to respond by the September 19 deadline. A subsequent order on 2 September 23 extended plaintiffs’ opposition deadline a second time to September 30, and again 3 warned that failure to respond to defendant’s motion may result in dismissal. 4 Nonetheless, plaintiffs failed to file an opposition by the September 30 deadline. Later 5 on September 30, plaintiffs were ordered to show cause by October 8 as to why this action 6 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and why plaintiffs did not oppose or respond to 7 Nationstar’s motion to dismiss. October 8 came and went without any response from plaintiffs. 8 In sum, plaintiffs were afforded three opportunities to oppose the motion to dismiss, but 9 they failed to do so and to date, still have not submitted any opposition to that motion. In light of the repeated warning from the above-mentioned orders, this action is DISMISSED FOR FAILURE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 TO PROSECUTE. 12 entered by separate order. See FRCP 41(b). The hearing on October 30 is VACATED. Judgment will be 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: October 10, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?