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

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh granting 8 Motion to Dismiss (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2015)

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

NANCY L. MICKELBERRY,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 15-CV-04589-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 8
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Nancy Mickelberry, with the assistance of counsel, brought suit against

19

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”); NBS Default Services, LLC (“NBS Default

20

Services”); and Does 1 through 50 in Monterey County Superior Court on August 28, 2015. ECF

21

No. 1-1. On October 5, 2015, Wells Fargo removed the instant case to federal court. ECF No. 1.

22

On October 13, 2015, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 8.

23

On November 2, 2015, NBS Default Services filed a notice of joinder to Wells Fargo’s Motion to

24

Dismiss. ECF No. 14. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s Opposition to Wells

25

Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss was due on October 27, 2015. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (“[Any] opposition

26

must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was filed.”). As of today,

27

December 18, 2015, Plaintiff has not yet filed an Opposition or Statement of Nonopposition to

28

1
Case No. 15-CV-04589-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

1
2

Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss.
Because Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court hereby

3

GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Should Plaintiff elect to file an

4

amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,

5

Plaintiffs shall do so within 30 days of the date of this Order. Failure to meet the 30 day deadline

6

to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies identified in Defendants’ Motion to

7

Dismiss will result in a dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs may not add new causes of action or

8

parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

9

Procedure 15.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: December 18, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

2
Case No. 15-CV-04589-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE