Herrera et al v. Recontrust Company, N.A. et al

Filing 26

ORDER vacating Order to Show Cause Hearing; Resetting Briefing Schedule on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; and striking 24 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Nenebeth T Herrera, Nelson R Herrera. Initial Case Management Conference set for 4/12/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. Motion Hearing set for 4/12/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Lucy H. Koh. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 1/9/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

NELSON R. HERRERA, an individual;
NENEBETH T. HERRERA, an individual,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
COUNTRYWIDE KB HOME LOANS, A
)
COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE VENTURES )
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; )
BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, LP, a
)
Business Entity, form unknown; CITIBANK,
)
N.A.; RECONTRUST COMPANY, a Business )
Entity, form unknown; MORTGAGE
)
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, )
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
)
through 50, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 5:11-CV-03591-LHK
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

21
On December 9, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiffs Nelson R. Herrera and Nenebeth T.
22
Herrera (collectively “Plaintiffs”) to show cause by January 3, 2012, why this case should not be
23
dismissed for failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 22. Plaintiffs timely filed a response to the Order
24
to Show Cause on January 3, 2012, but attempted to file a 39-page opposition to Defendants’
25
motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ proposed opposition does not comply with Civil Local Rule 7-4(b)
26
and will therefore be stricken. However, in light of Plaintiffs’ pro se status and timely answer to
27
the Order to Show Cause, the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to file an opposition to Defendants’
28
1
Case No.: 11-cv-03591-LHK
ORDER RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

motion to dismiss by January 17, 2012. Plaintiffs are on notice that any opposition not fully

2

compliant with the Civil Local Rules will be stricken. Defendants shall have until January 31,

3

2012 to file a reply.

4

As previously noted by the Court, any reply filed by Defendant Citibank must address why

5

Citibank’s joinder in Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is proper given that Citibank was not

6

a party to the prior action giving rise to Moving Defendants’ res judicata argument for dismissal.

7

The Order to Show Cause hearing scheduled for January 11, 2012 is hereby VACATED. A

8

hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is set for April 12, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. A case

9

management conference is hereby also set for April 12, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: January 9, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-cv-03591-LHK
ORDER RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE