Moran v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 18

Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/10/2014. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2014)

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

PATRICIA C. MORAN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:13-CV-04981-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

16
Plaintiff Patricia Moran filed her complaint in state court on September 4, 2013, which
17
Defendants then removed to federal court on October 25, 2013. See ECF No. 1. On November 1,
18
2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 7. In their motion, Defendants primarily
19
contend that Jenkins v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 216 Cal. App. 4th 497 (2013), forecloses
20
Plaintiff’s principal claims. See id. Defendants also provide other arguments for dismissal unique
21
to each of Plaintiff’s nine claims. See id. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposition
22
to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, was due
23
on November 15, 2013. As of today, March 10, 2014, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or
24
statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 725
1(b), the Court vacates the March 27, 2014 hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
26
In light of Plaintiff’s failure to timely oppose Defendants’ Motion, the Court ORDERS
27
Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal
28
1
Case No.: 13-CV-04981-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This Order does not authorize Plaintiff to file an untimely

2

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has until March 21, 2014 to file a response to this

3

Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for Thursday, March 27,

4

2014 at 1:30 p.m. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the March 27, 2014

5

hearing will result in dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: March 10, 2014

_________________________________
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.: 13-CV-04981-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE