Davenport et al v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA

Filing 23

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 6/2/2016. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 5/12/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CLYDE R. DAVENPORT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

Case No. 16-cv-01343-EMC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

Docket Nos. 6, 15
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA,

11

Defendant.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

13

Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, have filed a foreclosure-related action against Defendant.

14

Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint. The original motion was served on

15

Plaintiffs (via FedEx) on April 14, 2016. See Docket No. 8 (certificate of service). Subsequently,

16

Defendant re-served the motion on Plaintiffs (via FedEx) on April 19, 2016. (The motion was re-

17

noticed as the case had been reassigned from Judge Spero of this District to the undersigned. See

18

Docket No. 13 (reassignment order); Docket No. 15-1 (certificate of service).) A hearing on

19

Defendant’s motion is currently scheduled for May 26, 2016.

20

Although Plaintiffs have been on notice of Defendant’s motion since mid-April, they have

21

yet to file a written opposition to the motion. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (providing that an opposition to

22

a motion “must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed”). While

23

there are indications that Plaintiffs wish to prosecute this case – e.g., they filed a motion to compel

24

discovery in late April and then, in early May, filed a request for the Court to approve the

25

recording of a notice of lis pendens, see Docket Nos. 17, 20 (Plaintiffs’ filings), that does not

26

excuse their failure to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

27

Accordingly, the Court hereby VACATES the May 26 hearing on Defendant’s motion to

28

dismiss. Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to show cause as to why Defendant’s motion should not be

1

granted based on Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose and/or prosecute. In their response, Plaintiffs shall

2

also address the substantive arguments raised in Defendant’s motion. Plaintiffs’ response to this

3

order to show cause shall be filed and served by June 2, 2016. Plaintiffs are forewarned that

4

a failure to file a timely response shall result in a dismissal of this case with prejudice.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9
10

Dated: May 12, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2