Julio et al v. OneWest Bank, FSB

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 5/26/2015. (lhklc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ANTONIO A. JULIO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-03059-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiffs Antonio and Cleopatra Julio (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit on July 3, 2014 in this Court.

19

ECF No. 1. On August 14, 2014, Defendants OneWest Bank, FSB and OneWest Bank N.A.

20

(“Defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

21

Procedure 12. ECF No. 4. On January 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motion and

22

dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, granting Plaintiffs leave to file an amended

23

complaint within 30 days. ECF No. 27.

24

On February 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants. ECF No.

25

31. On March 2, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, arguing that

26

each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action should again be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

27

Procedure 12, this time with prejudice. ECF No. 34. A hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss

28

1
Case No. 14-CV-03059-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

is set for June 25, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. Id.

2

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to

3

dismiss was due on March 16, 2015. As of today, May 26, 2015, Plaintiffs have not filed an

4

opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

5

The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed

6

with prejudice for failure to prosecute. This Order does not authorize Plaintiffs to file an untimely

7

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has until June 5, 2015, to file a written

8

response not to exceed ten (10) pages in length to this Order to Show Cause. A hearing on this

9

Order to Show Cause is hereby set for June 11, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

10

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the hearing on June 11, 2015,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: May 26, 2015

___________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-03059-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE