Meneses v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER (1) CONTINUING MOTION HEARING RE 5 6 10 ; (2) REMINDER RE: CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE A MAGISTRATE JUDGE; (3) CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 5 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, 6 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint, 10 MOTION to expunge notice of pendency of action (lis pendens) and award of attorneys' fees and costs MOTION to expunge notice of pendency of action (lis pendens) and awar d of attorneys' fees and costs. Motion Hearing set for 1/17/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd.. Signed by Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 11/29/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2011)

Download PDF
1 ** E-filed November 30, 2011 ** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 DANTE MENESES, Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 CITIMORTAGE, INC.; and CR TITLE SERVICES, INC., 15 Defendants. ____________________________________/ No. C11-05227 HRL ORDER (1) CONTINUING MOTION HEARINGS; (2) REMINDER RE: DEADLINE FOR CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; AND (3) CONTINUING THE INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Dante Meneses brought this action against CitiMortgage, Inc. and CR Title 19 Services, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) in Santa Clara County Superior Court on September 28, 20 2011. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants timely removed the action to federal court. Id. Defendants then moved 21 to dismiss the complaint, to strike portion of the complaint, and to expunge notice of pendency of 22 action (lis pendens). Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, 10. The motions to dismiss and to strike are set for hearing on 23 December 13, and the motion to expunge the lis pendens is set for hearing on December 27. 24 Defendants request that the motion hearings be consolidated, and filed a Notice to continue the 25 December 13 hearing to the 27th. In the interests of judicial economy and due to the court’s 26 unavailability on December 27, these motions are hereby continued to January 17, 2012 at 10:00 27 a.m. in Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor, 280 S. First St., San Jose, CA. 28 1 The parties are reminded that this civil case has been randomly assigned to a magistrate 2 judge for all purposes including trial. Accordingly, all parties who have not yet done so shall, no 3 later than December 6, 2011, file either (1) a Consent to Proceed before a United States Magistrate 4 Judge or (2) a Declination to Proceed before a Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment to a 5 United States District Judge. See N.D. Cal. Civ. R. 73-1. The consent and declination forms are 6 available at the Clerk’s Office and may also be obtained from the court’s website at 7 8 9 Finally, there is an Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for December 13, 2011. In order to allow the court to hear and rule on the pending motions and the parties to respond For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 accordingly, the Case Management Conference is continued to February 14, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. The 11 parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement by February 7. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 30, 2011 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 C11-05227 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Wendell Jamon Jones Alice Marie Dostalova Stuart Bruce Wolfe 3 4 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 5 6 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?