Morris et al v. Bank of America et al

Filing 51

ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 31 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Responses due by 12/10/2010. Replies due by 12/17/2010. Motion Hearing set for 1/25/2011 01:00 PM. Case Management Conference set for 1/25/2011 01:00 PM.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/30/10. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2010)

Morris et al v. Bank of America et al

Doc. 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION JAMIE J. MORRIS and KATIE MORRIS, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No: C 09-2849 SBA ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND SETTING FORTH BRIEFING SCHEDULE

BANK OF AMERICA, successor due to the 14 acquisition of Countrywide Home Loans and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE 15 ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE,
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants.

Plaintiffs Jamie J. Morris and Katie Morris allege that Bank of America (as the successor to Countrywide Home Loans aka BAC Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP) and Federal National Mortgage Association violated federal and state laws in connection with the financing of their home. On March 3, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In accordance with the Court's ruling, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 9, 2010. On March 23, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint ("Defendants' Motion"). Dkt. 31. The hearing on Defendants' Motion was initially scheduled for July 14, 2010. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any opposition or statement of non-opposition was due by June 23, 2010, which is twenty-one days prior to the hearing date.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

As of June 28, 2010, no opposition to Defendants' Motion had been filed by Plaintiffs. Therefore, by Order dated June 28, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiffs, by July 5, 2010, to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 37. On June 29, 2010, Plaintiffs' filed a Request to File Opposition Late for Good Cause ("Plaintiffs' Request"), asking for leave to file their opposition brief, attached as "Exhibit A" to their request, on the grounds that Plaintiffs' counsel had been hospitalized for an extended time during the briefing period on Defendants' Motion, and counsel inadvertently failed to calendar the opposition. Dkt. 36. On July 2, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Request, and continued the hearing date on Defendants' Motion to September 28, 2010. Id. Also, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendants' Motion by July 16, 2010. Id. On September 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Request of Court for Changing Date of Hearing for Motion to Dismiss ("Plaintiffs' Motion"), asking the Court to continue the September 28, 2010 hearing date, on the ground that Plaintiffs' counsel would "be outside of the country." Dkt. 46 at 1. As of that date, Plaintiffs had not filed their opposition to Defendant's Motion. On October 28, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion, continuing the hearing date on Defendants' Motion to December 7, 2010, and ordering Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendants' Motion by November 11, 2010. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed their opposition to Defendants' Motion. On November 15, 2010, Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition, indicating that Plaintiffs had not filed their opposition as ordered. On November 24, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a response, asserting that they had already filed their opposition to Defendant's Motion on June 29, 2010 as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Request. However, Plaintiffs have not explained why they have failed to comply with the Court's July 2, 2010 and October 28, 2010 Orders requiring them to separately file their opposition brief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The December 7, 2010 hearing on Defendants' Motion is CONTINUED to

January 25, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendants' Motion, as a
-2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

separate docket entry, by no later than December 10, 2010. Any reply shall be filed by December 17, 2010. 2. Plaintiffs are expressly advised that failure to file a timely opposition to

Defendants' Motion will result in dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b) without further notice. 3. The December 7, 2010 Case Management Conference is CONTINUED to

January 25, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer prior to the conference and shall prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement which shall be filed no later than ten (10) days prior to the Case Management Conference that complies with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and the Standing Order of this Court. Plaintiffs shall be responsible for filing the statement. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 30, 2010 ______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge

-3-