Hix v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 32

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE DID NOT RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Re: Dkt. No. 31 . Hix must respond to this order by 7/22/2016. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 7/20/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

THOMAS HIX,
Plaintiff,

10
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et
al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01747 NC
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY HE DID NOT
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 31

14
In this unlawful foreclosure case, Defendants JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and U.S.

15
16

Bank, N.A. have filed a motion to dismiss Hix’s amended complaint. Dkt. No. 27. Hix’s

17

response to the motion to dismiss was due by July 15, 2016. Id. Hix has not filed a

18

response to the motion.

19

Defendants ask the Court to deem Hix’s failure to respond to be non-opposition to

20

their motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 31. Hix is ordered to show good cause why he failed to

21

file a response to the motion to dismiss by July 15. If he does not, his failure to respond

22

will be considered non-opposition to the motion to dismiss and his complaint will be

23

dismissed. He must respond to this order by July 22, 2016, in a brief not to exceed 5

24

pages.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: July 20, 2016

28
Case No.16-cv-01747 NC

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge