Paula Whiterock v. Old Republic Default Management Services et al

Filing 40

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Plaintiff's Show Cause Response due by 8/14/2015. Motion Hearing on 36 Motion to Dismiss continued to 9/17/2015 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Case Management Statement due by 10/27/2015. Case Management Conference set for 11/3/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/27/2015. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAULA WHITEROCK,

Case No. 15-cv-01033-KAW

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

OLD REPUBLIC DEFAULT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; ORDER
CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION
TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2015;
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. No. 36

12
13

On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff Paula Whiterock, proceeding pro se, filed this mortgage

14

case against Defendants Old Republic Default Management Services and Manufacturers and

15

Traders Trust Company (“M&T”). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.) On May 29, 2015, the Court

16

dismissed Plaintiff’s initial complaint with leave to amend.

17
18
19
20
21

On June 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed her first amended complaint. On July 2, 2015, M&T filed
a motion to dismiss, which was joined by co-defendant Old Republic. (Dkt. Nos. 36 & 38.)
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on July 20, 2015. To date,
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Accordingly, by no later than August 14, 2015, the Court orders Plaintiff to (1) show

22

cause why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and (2) file either an

23

opposition to the motion to dismiss or a statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss. The

24

response to this order to show cause and the opposition should be filed as separate documents.

25

Failure to timely file both documents may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to

26

prosecute. See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 22 (“The failure of the opposing party

27

to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute

28

consent to the granting of the motion”). The Court notes that Plaintiff similarly failed to timely

1

respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the initial complaint. (See 4/7/2015 Order to Show

2

Cause, Dkt. No. 20.) Going forward, any failure to timely respond to the pending litigation

3

without seeking an extension from the opposing parties by way of a formal stipulation—or by

4

filing for leave of court if consent cannot be obtained—to extend her time to respond will not be

5

treated so favorably, and may result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice.

6

To aid in her compliance with this order, Plaintiff may wish to consult a manual the court

7

has adopted to assist pro se litigants in presenting their case. This manual, and other free

8

information, is available online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also

9

contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service for pro se litigants— by calling

10

[phone] to make an appointment to have any remaining questions answered.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Additionally, the August 20, 2015 hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to

12

September 17, 2015 at U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California at 11:00 a.m. in

13

Courtroom 4. The case management conference scheduled for August 18, 2015 is continued to

14

November 3, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4. Case management conference statements are due

15

on or before October 27, 2015.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 27, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2