Schoenbart v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association et al

Filing 55

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE RE MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT, Replies due by 6/13/2016. Plaintiff's Show Cause Response due by 6/10/2016 at NOON Motion Hearing set for 7/14/2016 08:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/6/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

THERESA SCHOENBART,
Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 16-00070 WHA

v.

12

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A;
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., U.S.
BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust,

13
14
15

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULE RE
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Defendants.
/

16
17

The parties filed a stipulation seeking to continue the hearing on defendants’ pending

18

motions due to plaintiff’s counsel’s scheduling conflict. The stipulation also sought to extend

19

the deadline for all briefing by two weeks. No good cause was shown for the extension of the

20

deadline, and plaintiff’s responses were already nearly a week overdue. The parties were

21

ordered to show cause why the extension should be granted.

22

Defendants filed responses stating that they simply agreed to the stipulation as a matter

23

of professional courtesy (Dkt. Nos. 50–51). Plaintiff filed her responses to the pending

24

motions, but did not timely respond to the order to show cause. Plaintiff’s response, a day late,

25

restated the basis for continuing the hearing and apologized for the delay in responding to the

26

order to show cause, but included no explanation for the delay in filing her responses to

27

defendants’ motions. Plaintiff shall explain her delay in responding to the pending motions by

28

1

NOON ON JUNE 10. Failure to adequately respond may result in dismissal for lack of

2

prosecution.

3
4

Meanwhile, in light of the delays and plaintiff’s scheduling conflict, defendants’ replies
shall be due JUNE 13, and the hearing is hereby CONTINUED to JULY 14 AT 8:00 A.M.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: June 6, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

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