Lara et al v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc

Filing 23

ORDER Dismissing Case For Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/13/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2012)

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 DISMISSING CASE

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 by the March 26, 2012
24
response date. See ECF No. 9. Because Plaintiffs did not consent to proceed before a United
25
States Magistrate Judge, the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on April 9, 2012. See
26
ECF No. 13. Defendant re-noticed its motion to dismiss on April 11, 2012, which was set for
27
hearing on July 26, 2012. See ECF No. 14.
28
1
Case No.: 12-cv-01130-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

1

On May 18, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause by June 1, 2012, why this case

2

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 18. Plaintiffs failed to respond by

3

June 1, 2012, and failed to appear at the June 13, 2012 order to show cause hearing. Furthermore,

4

as of today, June 13, 2012, Plaintiffs have still not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

5

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall

6

close the file.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: June 13, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
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 DISMISSING CASE