Bennett et al v. Suntrust Mortgage Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING 21 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; GRANTING 13 MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING HEARING DATE; AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Case Management Conference set for 11/12/2010 is CONTINUED to 1/14/2011 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 11/9/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2010)

Bennett et al v. Suntrust Mortgage Inc.

Doc. 22

1 2 3 4 5 6

**E-Filed 11/9/10**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN JOSE DIVISION 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
C a s e No. 5:10-CV-03375-JF (HRL) O R D E R DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO A M E N D ; VACATING HEARING; AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ( JF E X 2 )

CLAUDE & PAMELA BENNETT, Plaintiffs, v. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 5:10-CV-03375-JF (HRL) ORDER1 DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; VACATING HEARING DATE; AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE [re: document nos. 13, 18, 20]

On August 2, 2010, Plaintiffs Claude and Pamela Bennett, proceeding pro se, filed their original complaint against Defendant Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. and other related claims. On September 13, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. The Court concludes that this motion is appropriate for determination without oral argument and will vacate the hearing date of November 12, 2010. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Under this Court's Civil Local Rules, Plaintiffs' opposition was due at least twenty-one days before the noticed hearing date of November 12, 2010, or by October 22, 2010. Plaintiffs did not file any opposition papers. Instead they filed a motion for an extension of time to file

1

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 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

opposition on November 2, 2010, which will be denied as untimely. Because the motion to dismiss appears well-taken and is unopposed, the motion to dismiss will be granted for the reasons stated therein. Given Plaintiffs' pro se status and the fact that the operative complaint is the original pleading, leave to amend will be granted. Any amended pleading shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of this order. ORDER For good cause shown, (1) (2) (3) Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time is DENIED; Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; any amended pleading shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of this order; (4) (5) the hearing date of November 12, 2010 is VACATED; and the Case Management Conference set for November 12, 2010 is CONTINUED to January 14, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.

DATED: November 9, 2010

__________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
C a s e No. 5:10-CV-03375-JF (HRL) O R D E R DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO A M E N D ; VACATING HEARING; AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ( JF E X 2 )

1 2 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

A copy of this order has been served upon the following persons: Claude & Pamela Bennett 508 Merrmann Drive Monterey, CA 93940

3
C a s e No. 5:10-CV-03375-JF (HRL) O R D E R DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO A M E N D ; VACATING HEARING; AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ( JF E X 2 )