Martinez v. Indymac Mortgage Services et al

Filing 14

ORDER Dismissing Case for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 5/24/2012.(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2012)

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

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 DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

17
Plaintiff Claudia Martinez filed a complaint in state court against Indymac Mortgage
18
Services and Freddie Mac (collectively “Defendants”) on June 1, 2011. See ECF No. 1. On
19
January 9, 2012, Defendants removed this case to federal court. On January 20, 2012, Defendants
20
filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint or in the alternative a Motion for Summary Judgment
21
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 56. See ECF No. 5. Plaintiff declined to
22
proceed before a magistrate judge on January 24, 2012, and the case was reassigned to the
23
undersigned judge on January 26, 2012. ECF Nos. 8, 10. On February 3, 2012, Defendants filed a
24
renewed Motion to Dismiss the complaint or in the alternative a Motion for Summary Judgment.
25
ECF No. 11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss
26
was due on February 17, 2012. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition
27
to Defendants’ motion.
28
1
Case No.: 12-cv-00147-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

1

On April 27, 2012, the Court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be

2

dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 13. The order to show cause ordered Plaintiff to

3

respond to the order to show cause by May 10, 2012, and to appear at the hearing on the order to

4

show cause on May 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. The order stated that if Plaintiff failed to respond to the

5

order and failed to appear at the May 24, 2012 hearing, this case would be dismissed with prejudice

6

for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause and failed to appear at

7

the order to show cause hearing. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case with prejudice for

8

failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall close the file.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: May 24, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-cv-00147-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE