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)

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