Cotter v. JP Morgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 18

ORDER DISCHARGING OSC; ORDER REFERRING PARTIES TO ADR UNIT FOR ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 5/27/2015. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

CYNTHIA COTTER,

Case No. 15-cv-01802-MEJ

Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE; ORDER REFERRING
CASE TO ADR UNIT FOR
ASSESSMENT CONFERENCE

Defendants.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

On May 11, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff Cynthia Cotter to show cause by May 21

12

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court

13

deadlines. Dkt. No. 15. Plaintiff did not respond to the Order to Show Cause, but she did file an

14

Opposition to the Defendants’ pending Motions to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 17. Although Plaintiff has

15

not established good cause for her failure to prosecute this case diligently, it is preferable for cases

16

to be resolved on the merits rather than dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of

17

Civil Procedure 41. Accordingly, the Court DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause. However,

18

notice is hereby provided to Plaintiff Cynthia Cotter that the Court may dismiss this case for

19

failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 if she continues to disregard court orders and deadlines.

20

The Order to Show Cause came in response to Plaintiff’s failure to participate in ADR

21

proceedings as ordered by the Court. Specifically, on April 28, 2015, the Court referred this

22

foreclosure-related action to the ADR Unit for a telephone conference to assess the case’s

23

suitability for mediation or a settlement conference. Dkt. No. 9. Although the ADR Unit

24

scheduled a phone conference to take place on May 11, 2015 (Dkt. No. 10), Plaintiff did not dial

25

in to the phone conference and did not otherwise contact the ADR Unit. As the Order to Show

26

Cause has now been discharged, the Court re-refers this case to the ADR Unit for a telephone

27

conference. The conference shall take place by June 16, 2015. The parties shall be prepared to

28

discuss the following subjects:

1

(1)

Identification and description of claims and alleged defects in loan
documents.

(2)

Prospects for loan modification.

(3)

Prospects for settlement.

2
3
4

The parties need not submit written materials to the ADR Unit for the telephone
5
conference. In preparation for the telephone conference, Plaintiff shall do the following:
6
7
8

(1)

Review relevant loan documents and investigate the claims to
determine whether they have merit.

(2)

If Plaintiff would like a loan modification to resolve all or some of
the claims, Plaintiff shall prepare a current, accurate financial
statement and gather all of the information and documents
customarily needed to support a loan modification request. Further,
Plaintiff shall immediately notify counsel for Defendants of the
request for a loan modification.

(3)

Provide counsel for Defendants with information necessary to
evaluate the prospects for loan modification, in the form of a
financial statement, worksheet or application customarily used by
financial institutions.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

In preparation for the telephone conference, Defendants shall do the following.

15

(1)

If unable or unwilling to do a loan modification after receiving
notice of the request, Defendants shall promptly notify Plaintiff to
that effect.

(2)

Arrange for a representative of each Defendant with full settlement
authority to participate in the telephone conference.

16
17
18
19

The ADR Unit will notify the parties of the date and time the telephone conference will be

20

held. After the telephone conference, the ADR Unit will advise the Court of its recommendation

21

for further ADR proceedings.

22
23
24

Plaintiff is ORDERED to dial in to the ADR phone conference. Failure to comply
with this Order may result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: May 27, 2015

27

______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

CYNTHIA COTTER,

Case No. 15-cv-01802-MEJ

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on May 27, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Cynthia Cotter
3325 San Leandro Street
Oakland, CA 94601

19
20

Dated: May 27, 2015

21
22
23

Richard W. Wieking
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Chris Nathan, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable MARIA-ELENA JAMES

27
28
3