Ramirez et al v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Hearing and Case Management Conference set for 12/8/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 11/9/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.,
)
MERS; FV-1, INC., IN TRSUT FOR MORGAN )
STANLEY MORTAGE CAPITAL HOLDINGS,)
LLC; DOES 1-100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
OLIVIA JIMENEZ RAMIREZ; LUCIA R.
JIMENEZ,

Case No.: 11-CV-3726-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On June 9, 2011, Plaintiffs, in pro per, filed an action in California Superior Court alleging

16

claims for “unlawful trustee sale;” violation of Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2923.5; breach of implied

17

covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and “defendant has not standing right to title.” ECF No. 1,

18

Ex. A, at 6. On July 29, 2011, the case was removed by Defendants based on diversity jurisdiction.

19

On August 5, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 4. After the case was

20

reassigned to the undersigned on August 25, 2011, ECF No. 6, Defendants filed and served on

21

Plaintiffs, by mail, an amended motion to dismiss on August 26, 2011. ECF No. 7. Per the Civil

22

Local Rules, Plaintiffs’ opposition was due September 9, 2011. On August 29, 2011, Defendants

23

gave notice, by mail, to Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs’ opposition was due on September 9, 2011, and

24

that the motion was set for hearing on November 17, 2011. ECF No. 9. Plaintiffs failed to file an

25

opposition on September 9, 2011, or any time thereafter. On September 14, 2011, Defendants gave

26

notice, again by mail, that Defendants’ motion was unopposed. ECF No. 11.

27

In light of Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose Defendants’ motion, the Court orders Plaintiffs to

28

show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Order does not
authorize Plaintiffs to file an untimely opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have
Case No.: 11-CV-03726-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11

until December 1, 2011, to file a response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order
to Show Cause is set for December 8, 2011, at 2:00 p.m, with a case management conference to
follow. Failure to respond to this Order and appear at the December 8, 2011, hearing will result in
dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The case management conference and hearing
set for November 17, 2011, are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 11-CV-03726-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN SENT TO:
Olivia Jimenez Ramirez
Lucia R. Jimenez
8 Estrella Circle
Salinas, CA 93905

Dated: November 9, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By:__/s/_________________
Juan P. Valdivieso,
Law Clerk