Lal v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 5/4/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2015)

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

AASHWINI LAL,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 15-CV-01421-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Aashwini Lal (“Plaintiff”), with the assistance of counsel, filed suit on or around

19

October 31, 2014, in Santa Clara County Superior Court. ECF No. 1 Ex. A. Plaintiff filed a First

20

Amended Complaint on or around November 14, 2014. Id. Ex. C. Defendants Specialized Loan

21

Servicing, LLC (“SLS”), Specialized Asset Management, LLC (“SAM”), and Deutsche Bank

22

National Trust as Trustee for GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 206-0A1 (“Deutsche”) (collectively,

23

“Defendants”) removed the instant case to federal court on March 27, 2015. ECF No. 1

24

On April 3, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit, arguing that each of

25

Plaintiff’s causes of action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of

26

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 10. A hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

27

was set for September 10, 2015. ECF No. 20. The instant case was reassigned to the undersigned

28

1
Case No. 15-CV-01421-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1
2

on April 10, 2015. ECF No. 16.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-3(a) and 7-7(d), Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’

3

Motion to Dismiss was due on April 17, 2015. On April 24, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of

4

Non-Opposition, which indicated that “Defendants have not received an opposition, nor does the

5

Court’s docket note any entry of a filing of an opposition.” ECF No. 17 at 2. Because Plaintiff

6

had failed to file any Opposition, Defendants requested “that the Court sustain the motion to

7

dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend.” Id. As of today, May 4, 2015, Plaintiff has not

8

filed an Opposition or Statement of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed

10

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff has until May 15, 2015, to file a written

12

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

13

Order to Show Cause is hereby set for May 21, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

14

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the hearing on May 21, 2015,

15

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

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: May 4, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 15-CV-01421-LHK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE