Tyson et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 29

ORDER STRIKING 28 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/26/2015. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

LEONARD K. TYSON, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-01548-BLF

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
11

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
[Re: ECF 28]

12
13
14

On August 3, 2015 Defendant Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (“Real Time”) filed a motion to

15

dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. ECF No. 22. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant Real Time’s

16

motion to dismiss was due on August 17, 2015 and Defendant Real Time’s reply was due on

17

August 24, 2015. Plaintiff did not file its opposition by August 17, 2015 and on August 24, 2015,

18

Defendant Real Time filed a reply arguing Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed without

19

leave to amend because Plaintiff failed to file an opposition. ECF No. 27.

20

Meanwhile, on August 7, 2015, Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) also

21

filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint. ECF No. 23. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant

22

Nationstar’s motion to dismiss was due on August 21, 2015 and Plaintiff did not file an opposition

23

by this date. However, on August 24, 2015, after Defendant Real Time filed a reply pointing out

24

that Plaintiffs had failed to file an opposition, Plaintiffs filed a single opposition brief responding

25

to both Defendants’ motions to dismiss. ECF No. 28. This opposition is signed and dated

26

“August 21, 2015” but was not filed until August 24, 2015. ECF No. 28 at 19.

27
28

Under Civil L.R. 7-3(a), any opposition to a motion “must be filed and served not more
than 14 days after the motion was filed.” Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed more than 14 days after

1

each of the motions to dismiss and was filed without seeking either a leave of Court to file an

2

untimely pleading or an extension of the deadline to file an opposition. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

3

opposition filing at ECF 28 is STRICKEN for being untimely without prejudice for Plaintiffs to

4

seek leave to file an untimely opposition.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

9
10

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