Lara et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 6/13/2012 02:00 PM. Show Cause Response due by 6/1/2012. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 5/18/12. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012)

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

ELFEGO LARA and LEONOR LARA,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE
SERVICING, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-cv-01130-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

17
On February 6, 2012, Plaintiffs Elfego Lara and Leonor Lara (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
18
commenced this action against Defendant American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“Defendant”)
19
in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, which Defendant then removed to
20
federal court on March 6, 2012, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as the ground for
21
removal. See ECF No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”), ¶ 2. On March 13, 2012, Defendant filed a
22
motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of
23
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No. 5. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. See ECF No. 9.
24
Because Plaintiffs did not consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, the case was
25
reassigned to the undersigned judge on April 9, 2012. See ECF No. 13. Defendant re-noticed its
26
motion to dismiss on April 11, 2012, which is set for hearing on July 26, 2012. See ECF No. 14.
27
Plaintiffs have again failed to file an opposition by their response date. See ECF No. 16.
28
1
Case No.: 12-cv-01130-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause by June 1, 2012, why this

2

case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiffs to

3

file an untimely opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The hearing on Defendant’s motion

4

to dismiss and the case management conference scheduled for July 26, 2012, are VACATED, and a

5

hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for June 13, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiffs’ failure to

6

response to this Order and to appear at the June 13, 2012 hearing will result in dismissal of this

7

action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: May 18, 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.: 12-cv-01130-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE