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).

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