Samson v. One West Bank et al

Filing 57

ORDER. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 9/28/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/29/2011: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (nah, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

MARILOU SAMSON,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

ORDER

ONE WEST BANK, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 10-4827 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

On September 9, 2011, Aurora Loan Services LLC (“Aurora”), the sole defendant

14

remaining in this case, filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The

15

motion was noticed for hearing on October 19, 2011. The court advised Aurora of its

16

unavailability on that date, and on September 9, 2011, Aurora filed a notice of new hearing

17

date, noticing the hearing for November 9, 2011. Aurora attached a certificate of service,

18

showing service of the notice on plaintiff, also on September 9, 2011.

19

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was due on September 23, 2011, pursuant to Civil

20

Local Rule 7-3. However, on that date, in lieu of an opposition to the motion to dismiss,

21

plaintiff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. (The court has not reviewed

22

plaintiff’s motion, and it is possible that some of plaintiff’s arguments can be construed as

23

an opposition to the motion to dismiss.)

24

On September 27, 2011, plaintiff filed an “amended” motion for judgment as a matter

25

of law, with supporting papers; a motion for supplemental relief to add additional claims to

26

the complaint; and a “motion to correct the record.” All three of these motions were noticed

27

for hearing on October 19, 2011.

28

To repeat, the court is not available on October 19, 2011. (Even were the court

1

available on that date, plaintiffs’ motions were not noticed in accordance with Civil Local

2

Rule 7.) The court will hear plaintiff’s recently-filed motions at the time that it hears

3

Aurora’s motion to dismiss, which is presently scheduled to be heard on November 9,

4

2011. If it becomes necessary to continue the hearing date, the court will advise the

5

parties in writing.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: September 28, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
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