Abalos et al v. Bank of America Home Loan Servicing, L.P. et al
Filing
19
ORDER re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Complaint filed by Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc., Bank of New York, Mellon, Bank of America Home Loan Servicing, L.P., Bank of America, N.A., Recontrust Company, N.A. Case Management Conference set for 3/29/2012 03:00 PM. VIA TELEPHONE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/9/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
OAKLAND DIVISION
5
6 ESTRELLA G. ABALOS,
JOSE C. ABALOS and
7 DAVID-WYN MILLER: PlenipotentiaryJudge (Witnessing),
8
Plaintiff,
Case No: C 11-03150 SBA
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS
TO FILE RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS
9
vs.
Docket 8
10
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOAN
11 SERVICING, L.P., AMERICAN
WHOLESALE LENDER; RECONTRUST
12 COMPANY, N.A.; BANK OF NEW YORK,
MELLON, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
13 HOLDER OF THE SAMI II-2006-ARI, MTG
PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE;
14 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
Plaintiffs, acting pro se, filed the instant mortgage fraud action in this Court on June
19
24, 2011. Dkt. 1. On August 8, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal
20
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 15. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), an opposition to
21
a motion must be filed within fourteen days of the date the motion was filed, and the reply
22
is due seven days thereafter. As such, Plaintiffs’ response to the motion should have been
23
filed by no later than August 22, 2011. To date, Plaintiffs have not filed any response to
24
Defendants’ motion.
25
This Court’s Standing Orders warn that the failure to file a response to a motion may
26
be deemed to be a consent to the granting of the unopposed motion. Dkt. 12 at 5. As such,
27
it is well within the discretion of the Court to grant Defendants’ motion as unopposed and
28
dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.
1
1995). Nevertheless, mindful of its obligation to first consider to less drastic alternatives,
2
the Court will afford Plaintiffs one further opportunity to respond to the pending motion.
3
Accordingly,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
5
1.
Plaintiffs shall have until January 31, 2012 to file and serve their response
6
(i.e., either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition) to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6)
7
motion to dismiss.
8
9
10
11
2.
Plaintiffs’ response shall comply in all respects with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Court’s Civil Local Rules including, without limitation, Civil Local
Rules 7-3 through 7-5.
3.
PLAINTIFFS ARE WARNED THAT THE FAILURE TO FILE A
12
RESPONSE BY THIS DEADLINE AND/OR TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER
13
OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE PROCEDURAL RULES WILL RESULT IN THE
14
GRANTING OF THE PENDING MOTION AND THE DISMISSAL OF THIS
15
ACTION.
16
17
4.
In the event Plaintiffs timely file a response, Defendants may file a reply
seven days after the deadline for Plaintiffs’ response.
18
5.
The motion hearing scheduled for January 24, 2012 is VACATED.
19
6.
The Case Management Conference currently scheduled January 24, 2012 is
20
CONTINUED to March 29, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. Prior to the date scheduled for the
21
conference, the parties shall meet and confer and prepare a joint Case Management
22
Conference Statement which complies with the Standing Order for All Judges of the
23
Northern District of California and the Standing Orders of this Court. The Case
24
Management Conference will be conducted by telephone. Plaintiffs shall assume
25
responsibility for filing the joint statement no less than seven (7) days prior to the
26
conference date. Plaintiffs shall set up the conference call with all the parties on the line
27
and call chambers at (510) 637-3559. NO PARTY SHALL CONTACT CHAMBERS
28
DIRECTLY WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE COURT.
-2-
1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2012
______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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
-3-
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
ESTRELLA G ABALOS et al,
4
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
BANK OF AMERICA et al,
7
Defendant.
/
8
9
Case Number: CV11-03150 SBA
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11
12
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
13
14
15
That on January 9, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Estrella G. Abalos
136 Saint Francis Boulevard
San Francisco, CA 94127
Jose C. Abalos
136 Saint Francis Boulevard
San Francisco, CA 94127
22
Dated: January 9, 2012
23
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
24
By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?