Howard v. First Horizon Home Loan Corporation et al

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING METLIFE HOME LOANS, LLCS UNOPPOSED ( 9 , 11 MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

PATRICK D. HOWARD,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 12-5735

v.

9

FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN
CORPORATION; METLIFE HOME LOANS,
LLC; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC;
and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORPORATION,

10

Defendants.

8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING
METLIFE HOME
LOANS, LLC’S
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS
TO DISMISS AND TO
STRIKE (Docket
Nos. 9 and 11)

11

________________________________/

12

On November 15, 2012, Defendant Metlife Home Loans, LLC filed

13

motions to dismiss the claims brought against it by Plaintiff

14

Patrick D. Howard and to strike a portion of his complaint.

15

Docket Nos. 9 and 11.

16

Plaintiff’s responses to Metlife’s motions were due two weeks

17

later, or by November 29, 2012.1

18

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a),

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has failed to file

19

a response to either motion and has not sought an extension of

20

time.

21

to dismiss and to strike as to the claims against Metlife only

22

(Docket No. 9 and 11).

23
24

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Metlife’s unopposed motions

This Order does not address or affect the claims alleged or
relief sought against Defendants First Horizon Home Loan

25
26
27
28

1

After Metlife filed its motions, this action was reassigned
twice, the second time to the Undersigned. See Docket Nos. 15,
19. As noted in the orders reassigning the case, the briefing
schedules on Metlife’s motions were not changed by the
reassignments. Id.

1

Corporation, Nationstar Mortgage LLC and The Bank of New York

2

Mellon Corporation, who have not yet answered or otherwise

3

responded to Plaintiff’s complaint.2

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: 11/30/2012

7

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court notes that the parties have stipulated to extend
until December 4, 2012 the deadline for these Defendants to file a
responsive pleading to the complaint. Docket No. 6.
2