Kotsinsh et al v. Greenpoint Morgage Funding Incorporation et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO THE AURORA DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on December 13, 2012. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IMANT KOTSINSH and DAVID-WYNN MILLER, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) FIRST AMERICAN TITLE, a California ) Corporation; GREENPOINT FUNDING ) INCORPORATED, a New York Corporation; ) FINANCIAL TITLE COMPANY, a California ) Corporation; MARIN CONVEYANCING ) CORPORATION, “as Trustee”; AURORA ) LOAN SERVICES, LLC; AURORA BANK; ) FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, A COLORADO ) CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. “MERS”- ) A/K/A MERS CORPORATION, ) INCORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; ) AKERMAN SENTERFITT, LLP, a California ) Limited Liability Partnership Company; IMRAN ) HAYAT, ESQ., an Individual; TAYLOR L. ) BROADHEAD, ESQ., an Individual; JUSTIN D. ) BASLER, ESQ., an Individual; TFLG ) CORPORATION, a California Corporation; ) ERIC FERNANDEZ, ESQ., an Individual; ) SEAN BEDROSIAN, ESQ., an Individual; ) LAURIE HOWELL, ESQ., an Individual; CAL- ) WESTERN RECONVEYANCE ) CORPORATION, “as Trustee”, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 12-cv-04636-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO THE AURORA DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 1 Case No.: 12-cv-04636-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO THE AURORA DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 1 2 3 Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on September 5, 2012. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs’ Complaint appears to consist of miscellaneous words and numbers. On November 19, 2012, Defendants Aurora Bank FSB, Aurora Loan Services, LLC, and 4 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Aurora Defendants”) also filed a 5 motion to dismiss. ECF No. 11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition to the 6 Aurora Defendants’ motion to dismiss was due on December 3, 2012. Plaintiffs have not filed an 7 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the Aurora Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court previously ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be 9 dismissed as to Defendant Greepoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. as a result of Plaintiffs’ failure to file 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 an opposition to Defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding’s motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 12. 11 Plaintiff failed to respond to the order to show cause by the response date of December 10, 2012. 12 The Court hereby orders Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as 13 to the Aurora Defendants for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiffs to file 14 an untimely opposition to the Aurora Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have until 15 December 27, 2012 to file a response to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to 16 Show Cause is set for January 2, 2013 at 2:00 P.M. (the same time as the hearing on the Court’s 17 OSC regarding Defendant Greenpoint Mortgage Funding). Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this 18 Order and to appear at the January 2, 2013 hearing will result in dismissal of the Aurora 19 Defendants with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: December 13, 2012 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 12-cv-04636-LHK ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS TO THE AURORA DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?