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)

Download PDF
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?