Castellanos v. Countrywide Bank NA et al
Filing
34
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; NOTICE OF IMMINENT DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/19/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2015)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
MARIA CASTELLANOS,
Case No. 15-cv-00896-BLF
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; NOTICE
OF IMMINENT DISMISSAL
9
10
COUNTRYWIDE BANK NA, et al.,
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
On June 30, 2015, the Court granted Bank of New York Mellon, Mortgage Electronic
14
Registration Systems, Inc., National Default Servicing Corporation, and Select Portfolio
15
Servicing, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to
16
amend. See ECF No. 32. The Court’s order granted Plaintiff up to and including July 24, 2015 to
17
file a first amended complaint. Id. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint. On July 29,
18
2015, Defendants filed a notice of lodgment of proposed dismissal. See ECF No. 33. As of
19
August 19, 2015, Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ filing. The failure to amend a
20
complaint is considered a failure to comply with a Court order and is grounds for dismissal of this
21
action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Yourish v. Calif.
22
Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999).
23
Further, Plaintiff filed her complaint on February 27, 2015, see ECF No. 1, and there is no
24
evidence in the Court records that Plaintiff has served Countrywide Bank NA (n/k/a Bank of
25
America), Reconstruct Company, or Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (n/k/a BAC Home Loans
26
Servicing, LP) with the summons and complaint. An unreasonable delay in service is considered a
27
failure to prosecute and is also grounds for dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal
28
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., 403 F.3d 1373, 1375-77 (Fed. Cir.
1
2
2005) (applying the law of the Ninth Circuit).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause on or before August 31, 2015
3
why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and
4
for failure to prosecute. If Plaintiff does not respond, the Court will dismiss the action with
5
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9
10
Dated: August 19, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?