Garcia et al v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 11/14/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

JOSE GARCIA and CONSUELO GARCIA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SCME MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-01988-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

17

Plaintiffs Jose and Consuelo Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) filed their complaint in this Court on

18

April 20, 2012, alleging ten claims. ECF No. 1. On August 21, 2012, Defendants BAC Home

19

Loans Servicing (“BAC”) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche”) filed a

20

motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22. On August 23, 2012, the same defendants filed an amended

21

motion to dismiss, ECF No. 25. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition to the

22

amended motion to dismiss was due on September 6, 2012. Plaintiffs never filed an opposition or

23

statement of nonopposition to either of BAC and Deutsche’s motions to dismiss.

24

Subsequently, on August 27, 2012, Defendant Fidelity National Title Company (“Fidelity”)

25

filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 27. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition

26

to Fidelity’s motion to dismiss was due on September 10, 2012. Plaintiffs never filed an opposition

27

or statement of nonopposition to Fidelity’s motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2012, Defendant

28

Aurora Loan Services, LLC (“Aurora”) filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 31. Pursuant to Civil
1
Case No.: 12-CV-1988-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

1

Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition to Aurora’s motion to dismiss was due on September 14,

2

2012. Plaintiffs never filed an opposition or statement of nonopposition to Aurora’s motion to

3

dismiss.

4

On October 12, 2012This Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not

5

be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 33. In the Order to Show Cause, the Court ordered

6

Plaintiffs to file a response by November 2, 2012, and to appear at a hearing on November 14,

7

2012 at 2:00 p.m. The Court’s Order also explained that failure to respond by the deadline and to

8

appear at the hearing would result in dismissal of this case with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a one-

9

sentence motion for leave to amend their complaint on November 2, 2012, ECF No. 34, but

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause, nor did they appear at the hearing on

11

November 14, 2012. Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s October 12, 2012 Order to Show

12

Cause, this case is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall close the file.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: November 14, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-1988-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE