Bracamontes v. Chas Home Finance, LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER re 4 Continuing Briefing and Hearing Schedule; and Setting New Deadline for Parties to File Either a "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge," or Else a "Declination to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment." Signed by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull on 10/18/10. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 10/19/2010)

Bracamontes v. Chas Home Finance, LLC et al

Doc. 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 On September 7, 2010, Defendants Chase Home Finance, LLC, Deutsche Bank National 18 19 20 written consent to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, or request reassignment to a District 21 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on the motion to dismiss is CONTINUED to 23 24 25 26 27 28 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances underlying the present motion. A copy of the court's Civil Local Rules are available from the clerk of the court, or from the "Rules" section of the court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov). Magistrate Judges have authority to hear dispositive motions, such as the motion to dismiss, only in cases where all parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). OR D E R, page 1
Dockets.Justia.com
3 2 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MIGUEL A. PATINO BRACAMONTES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ) CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Case No.: C 10-3888 PVT ORDER CONTINUING BRIEFING AND HEA R IN G SCHEDULE; AND SETTING NEW DEA D LIN E FOR PARTIES TO FILE EITHER A "CO N SEN T TO PROCEED BEFORE A UN ITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE," OR ELSE A "DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFO R E A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JU D G E AND REQUEST FOR REA SSIG N M E N T"

Trust, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a motion to dismiss.1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 731(a)(2),2 no later than one week after that motion was filed each party was required to file either a

Judge.3 None of the parties have yet done so. Therefore, based on the file herein,

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

December 7, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5 of this court. The deadline for Plaintiff to file an opposition brief is extended to November 12, 2010.4 Plaintiff can find information about responding to the motion in the court's Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer, which is available from the clerk of the court, or by clicking on the "Pro Se Handbook" link in the list on the right-hand side of the court's website. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file a reply brief no later than November 23, 2010. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to file either a "Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge," or else a "Declination to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment," is extended to November 9, 2010. Both forms are available from the clerk of the court, or from the "Forms" section of the court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov). Dated: 10/18/10 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff has not yet filed any written opposition to the motion. See CIV.L.R. 7-3(a) ("Any opposition to a motion must be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date."). Because Plaintiff is representing himself pro se, the court finds it appropriate to extend the deadline for filing the opposition. See, Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986) (Under Ninth Circuit case law, pro se litigants are treated with "great leniency" when evaluating compliance with "the technical rules of civil procedure"). ORDER, page 2

4

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 OR D E R, page 3 /s/ Donna Kirchner OSCAR RIVERA Courtroom Deputy for copies mailed on 10/18/10 to: Counsel automatically notified of this filing via the court's Electronic Case Filing system.

Miguel A. Patino Bracamontes 14780 Butano Terrace Saratoga, CA 95070