Susu et al v. Bayview Loan Servicing LLC et al
Filing
20
ORDER DENYING ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge William Alsup denying 19 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2017) The deputy clerk hereby certifies that on 12/4/2017 a copy of this order was served by sending it via first-class mail to the address of each non-CM/ECF user listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing and was also emailed. Modified on 12/4/2017 (afmS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
JERRIES SOUSOU and VIOLETTE SUSU,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
Plaintiffs,
No. C 17-05879 WHA
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING ADDITIONAL
EXTENSION OF BRIEFING
SCHEDULE AND ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
Pro se plaintiffs Jerries Sousou and Violette Susu failed to meet their November 21
16
deadline to file a response to defendants’ pending motions to dismiss. On November 29, the
17
undersigned judge issued an order to show cause why plaintiffs’ complaint should not be
18
dismissed, and extended plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the motions until December 4 (Dkt.
19
No. 18). On December 1, plaintiffs requested an additional 30-day extension to file a response
20
to defendants’ motions (Dkt. No. 19). The reason they give for this delay is that preparing a
21
response “is an arduous task and plaintiffs have not been able to address their responsibilities at
22
this time” (id. ¶ 2). In short, plaintiffs argue that they are just too busy to actively pursue the
23
lawsuit that they filed in this Court. Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for the requested
24
extension, and accordingly their request is DENIED.
25
Plaintiffs shall file a response to the pending motions to dismiss by DECEMBER 6. If
26
plaintiffs fail to file a response by the December 6 deadline, they are still required to appear in
27
courtroom 12 on the 19th floor of 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco on December 14 at
28
8:00 A.M. and SHOW CAUSE why their complaint should not be dismissed. Defendants’ reply
to plaintiffs’ response, if any, is due by DECEMBER 11 AT NOON.
1
The Clerk shall serve plaintiffs with this order via electronic-mail and first-class mail.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
Dated: December 4, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?