Tapang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 12

ORDER to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Prosecute. Show Cause Response due by 6/14/2012. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 6/21/2012 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/1/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

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
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ESTERLITA CORTES TAPANG,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., successor by
)
merger to Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., as )
Trustee f/k/a Northwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., )
as Trustee for the registered holders of
)
Structured Asset Securities Corporation,
)
Amortizing Residential Collateral Trust,
)
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
)
2002-BC9; STRUCTURED ASSET
)
SECURITIES CORPORATION, Amortizing
)
Residential Collateral Trust, Mortgage Pass)
Through Certificates, Series 2002-BC9;
)
STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES
)
CORPORATION; OCWEN LOAN
)
SERVICING, LLC; FINANCE AMERICA,
)
LLC; WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, LLC;
)
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION )
SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 500,
)
INCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-02183-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

25

On May 2, 2012, and May 22, 2012, Plaintiff Esterlita Cortes Tapang (“Plaintiff”) filed ex

26

parte applications for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). On May 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed her

27

complaint in this action. Plaintiff never served the Summons, Complaint, or the two TRO

28

applications on any Defendants.
1
Case No.: 12-cv-02183-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

On May 23, 2012, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s second ex parte TRO

2

application, and ordering Plaintiff to file proof of service of the Summons, Complaint, Plaintiff’s

3

second TRO application, and the Order denying Plaintiff’s second TRO application on all

4

Defendants by May 25, 2012. ECF No. 11 (“May 23 Order”). The Court further ordered

5

Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s TRO by June 7, 2012, contingent upon Plaintiff’s

6

compliance with the Court’s May 23 Order, and scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a

7

preliminary injunction for June 21, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

8
9

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s May 23 Order. As of today, June 1, 2012,
Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of the Summons and Complaint, the second TRO

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

application, and the Order denying Plaintiff’s second TRO application on any of the Defendants.

11

Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed

12

for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff’s response to this Order to Show Cause is due June 14, 2012.

13

The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is hereby VACATED, and a hearing

14

on this Order to Show Cause will take place instead on June 21, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s

15

failure to respond by June 14, 2012 and failure to appear at the June 21, 2012 hearing will result in

16

dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: June 1, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-cv-02183-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE