Corral et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 32

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 6/7/2016. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/24/2016. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ESPERANZA CORRAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Docket Nos. 20, 23

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Case No. 16-cv-00964-EMC

13

Plaintiffs Esperanza Corral and Diana Balgas filed the instant suit against Defendants Bank

14

of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

15

and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Docket No. 1. (Compl.) Plaintiffs assert that Defendants

16

violated the Fair Housing Act, Equal Opportunity Credit Act, California Fair Employment and

17

Housing Act, California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and the California Unruh

18

Civil Rights Act by “willfully denying them sustainable home mortgage loan modifications due to

19

their being a female, same-sex couple of Latina descent.” Id. at ¶ 1; see also id. at ¶¶ 25-56.

20

Plaintiffs also filed an action in state court predicated on similar factual allegations and asserting

21

identical causes of action, and the Bank of America Defendants and Chase filed separate notices of

22

removal. Case Nos. 16-cv-2215, 16-cv-2235. The three cases have since been consolidated.

23

Docket No. 29.

24

Currently pending before the Court are four motions to dismiss. Docket Nos. 20 (Chase

25

Motion to Dismiss), 23 (Bank of America Motion to Dismiss); Case No. 16-cv-2215, Docket No.

26

10 (Bank of America Motion to Dismiss); Case No. 16-cv-2235, Docket No. 6 (Chase Motion to

27

Dismiss). Plaintiffs’ oppositions to the motion to dismiss were due on May 18, 2016 in the instant

28

case and Case No. 16-cv-2215, and May 16, 2016 in Case No. 16-cv-2235. No opposition has

1

been filed in response to any of the motions to dismiss.

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the June 21, 2016 hearing on Defendants’ four

3

motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause as to why their complaints should

4

not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to oppose and/or failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs shall

5

also address, in their response to this order to show cause, the substantive arguments raised by

6

Defendants in their respective motions.

7

Plaintiffs’ response shall be filed within two weeks of the date of this order. Plaintiffs

8

are forewarned that a failure to timely file a response to this order to show cause shall result in

9

dismissal of their cases with prejudice.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15

Dated: May 24, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2