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

Filing 36

ORDER LIFTING STAY and re Response to 14 MOTION to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James Donato on 10/20/2015. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/20/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SADIE S. SHAW,

Case No. 15-cv-01755-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND RE
RESPONSE TO MOTION

9
10

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 14

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff Sadie S. Shaw, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants J.P.

13

Morgan Chase, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), and OCWEN Loan

14

Servicing, LLC (“OCWEN”) on April 17, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed

15

defendant J.P. Morgan Chase. Dkt. No. 35.

16
17
18

Defendants MERS and OCWEN filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 31, 2015.
Dkt. No. 14. To date, plaintiff Shaw has not filed an opposition to the motion.
Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff Shaw should have filed a response to the motion to

19

dismiss by August 17, 2015. See Civil L.R. 7-3 (“The opposition must be filed and served not

20

more than 14 days after the motion was filed. . . However, by this Local Rule, the Court extends

21

by 3 days the deadline to file an opposition to a motion if the motion was not filed and served

22

through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system and was served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

23

P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E) or (F)”); see also Dkt. No. 19.

24

Under Civil Local Rule 7-7(d), the deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss was not

25

extended when defendants filed a notice changing the date of the hearing on August 3, 2015. See

26

Dkt. No. 19 (changing hearing date); Civil L.R. 7-7(d) (“the continuance of the hearing of a

27

motion does not extend the time for filing and serving the opposing papers”).

28

1

The reassignment of the case to this Court on August 13, 2015 also did not extend the

2

deadline for plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion. Dkt. No. 22 (“Briefing schedules …

3

remain unchanged.”)

4

Consequently, when the Court stayed this case on September 3, 2015, pending completion

5

of an ADR process, plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was already overdue. See Dkt.

6

No. 27.

7

The ADR process has now completed and the Court now lifts the stay. The Court orders
Shaw to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)

9

motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) by November 4, 2015. The response must comply in all respects

10

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Civil Local Rules, including Rules 7-3

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

to 7-5. Shaw may wish to consult a manual the court has adopted to assist pro se litigants in

12

presenting their case. This manual, and other free information, is available online at:

13

http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants.

14

If Shaw fails to comply with this order, or any of the applicable procedural rules, or fails to

15

file the opposition or statement of non-opposition by November 4, 2015, the Court may grant the

16

pending motion to dismiss as unopposed or otherwise dismiss this action for failure to prosecute.

17

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a

18

court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”)

19
20
21
22

If Shaw files a timely response to the motion to dismiss, defendants may file a reply seven
calendar days after that.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 20, 2015

23
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2