Benford v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 19

DISREGARD ENTRY. ATTACHMENT IS INCORRECT. SEE DKT. NO. 20 FOR CORRECT ENTRY ORDER STRIKING FILING. Court ORDERS Clerk to STRIKE Document No. 19. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 9/19/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2013) Modified on 9/20/2013 (fs, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 MARCUS BENFORD, Plaintiff, 10 Northern District of California United States District Court ORDER STRIKING FILING vs. 11 12 Case No.: 13-CV-3145 YGR J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. A/K/A CHASE MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., 13 Defendant. 14 On December 6, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Marcus Benford filed a complaint in California state 15 16 court, challenging alleged irregularities in foreclosure and home loan modification proceedings 17 conducted in 2009. Defendant was served on June 10, 2013 and timely removed to this Court on July 18 9, 2013. See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on July 16, 2013. Dkt. No. 6. 19 Plaintiff’s opposition was due on July 30, 2013. The motion was set for oral argument on September 20 17, 2013.1 The July 30 opposition deadline passed without Plaintiff filing an opposition or otherwise 21 22 appearing before this Court. Accordingly, on August 1, 2013, the Court issued an order: extending 23 Plaintiff’s time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss to August 15; warning Plaintiff that 24 failure to respond would result in dismissal of his case for failure to prosecute; and referring Plaintiff 25 to the Court’s Legal Help Center, which may assist pro se plaintiffs who make an appointment. On 26 1 27 28 The case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Laporte, and the hearing noticed for her September 17 calendar. However, on July 22, 2013, Defendant declined Magistrate Judge Laporte’s jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 9. The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned judge and renoticed for her September 17, 2013 calendar. 1 August 20, 2013, having received no response from Plaintiff by the extended deadline, the Court 2 dismissed Plaintiff’s action without prejudice. Dkt. No. 16. In so doing, the Court vacated the 3 September 17 motion hearing. Id. The Clerk served Plaintiff with notice of the Court’s dismissal of 4 his case. Dkt. No. 18. made his first appearance before this Court by filing a document styled as “Plaintiff’s Opposition to 7 Defendant[’s] Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint.” Dkt. No. 19. The Court appreciates that 8 the Opposition signals Plaintiff’s intent to begin to prosecute his case here in federal court. 9 However, although Plaintiff has filed an opposition, there is no motion to dismiss left to oppose. 10 Moreover, Plaintiff’s case has already been dismissed. Plaintiff’s filing is therefore without legal 11 Northern District of California On September 19, 2013, two days after Defendant’s motion would have been heard, Plaintiff 6 United States District Court 5 effect and shall be struck. 12 If Plaintiff now intends to prosecute his case, he must first seek to have his case reopened. 13 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Plaintiff may file a motion to set aside the Court’s 14 previous order of dismissal. Simply filing this motion will not necessarily result in having the case 15 reopened; rather, Plaintiff must first make the showing required under the law. 16 The Court reminds Plaintiff that he may contact the Court’s Legal Help Center to seek 17 assistance with filing his papers. In the time since Plaintiff’s case was dismissed, the Legal Help 18 Center has opened a branch in Oakland. Plaintiff may make an appointment with either the San 19 Francisco or Oakland Legal Help Center by calling (415) 782-8982. 20 The Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk to STRIKE Docket No. 19. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Date: September 19, 2013 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

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?