James v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP et al

Filing 8

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Previously-noticed hearing date of 2/10/2011 re 5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Bank of America has been VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 12/17/2010. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2010)

Download PDF
James v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP et al Doc. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JAMES W. JAMES, Plaintiff, v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ On December 14, 2010, Defendants Litton Loan Servicing, LP, and Bank of America, filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Strike the Punitive Damage Allegations of Second Amended Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. See Docket No. 5. Defendants noticed a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss for February 10, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, a signed consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge must be filed by each party before consideration of any dispositive motion. All parties in the abovecaptioned case have not filed a signed consent to proceed before a Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss set for February 10, 2011, is hereby VACATED. Upon the filing of signed consents by all parties to the action, the Court will issue an order resetting the hearing. If a declination is filed, the case will be immediately reassigned to an Article III District Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 17, 2010 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C-10-05407 (DMR) ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING CONSENT TO JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com

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?