Martinez v. Indymac Mortgage Services et al

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 5/24/2012 01:30 PM. Show Cause Response due by 5/10/2012. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 4/27/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2012)

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

CLAUDIA MARTINEZ, an individual,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, a
)
division of ONEWEST BANK, FSB; FREDDIE )
MAC, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:12-CV-00147-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Claudia Martinez filed a complaint against Indymac Mortgage Services and

20

Freddie Mac (collectively “Defendants”) on June 1, 2011. See ECF No. 1. On January 20, 2011,

21

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint or in the alternative a Motion for Summary

22

Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56. See ECF No. 5. Plaintiff

23

declined to proceed before a magistrate judge on January 24, 2012, and the case was reassigned to

24

the undersigned judge on January 26, 2012. ECF No. 10. On February 3, 2012, Defendants filed a

25

new Motion to Dismiss the complaint or in the alternative a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF

26

No. 11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was

27

due on February 17, 2012. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to

28

Defendants’ motion.
1
Case No.: 11-cv-05689-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

The hearing on Defendants’ motion and the case management conference set for May 24,

2

2012 are VACATED. The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should

3

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiff to file an untimely

4

opposition to Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff has until May 10, 2012 to file a response to this Order

5

to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for Thursday, May 24, 2012 at

6

1:30 P.M. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the May 24, 2012 hearing

7

will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

8
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Dated: April 27, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 11-cv-05689-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE