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

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 3/16/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2015)

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

EDWIN HANNON and BRANDIE
HANNON,

13
14

Case No.: 14-CV-05381-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiffs,
v.

15
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
16
17
18

Defendant.
Plaintiffs Edwin and Brandie Hannon (“Plaintiffs”), with the assistance of counsel, filed

19

their amended complaint in Monterey County Superior Court on November 6, 2014. ECF No. 1-1

20

Ex. A. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger with Wells Fargo Bank

21

Southwest, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB (“Wells Fargo”)

22

received service of process on November 7, 2014. ECF No. 1 at 5. On December 8, 2014, Wells

23

Fargo removed the instant case to federal court. Id. at 6.

24

On January 5, 2015, Wells Fargo filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, arguing,

25

inter alia, that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel and by the

26

applicable statutes of limitations. ECF No. 11. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiffs’

27
28

1
Case No.: 14-CV-05381-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was due on January 20, 2015.1 As of today, March 16, 2015,

2

Plaintiffs have not filed an Opposition or Statement of Nonopposition to Wells Fargo’s Motion to

3

Dismiss.

4

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

5

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

6

Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs have until March 26, 2015, to file a written response

7

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

8

Show Cause is hereby set for April 2, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

9

Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the hearing on April 2, 2015,
will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: March 16, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

January 19, 2015, was a federal holiday.
2

Case No.: 14-CV-05381-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE