Lobato v. Acqura Loan Services et al

Filing 9

ORDER: To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/7/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

1

FU_ED

2

~ jtjL

-9

2~

3
4

.{,g--""

5
6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 II ARMANDO A. LOBATO

CASE NO. llcv2601 WQH (JMA)

12

ORDER

13

14

Plaintiff,
vs.

T.D. SERVICES COMPANY; DOES 1
through 50 inclusive,

Defendants.

15
16

On October 31, 2011, Plaintiff Armando A. Lobato initiated this action by filing a

17

Complaint in the Superior Court ofCali fomi a for the County of San Diego against Defendants

18 Acqura Loan Services ("Acqura"), Castle Peak 2010-1 Loan Trust ("Castle"), T.D. Services
19

Company, and Yolanda Yvette Legrand ("Legrand"). (ECF No. 1-2). November 8, 2011,

20

Defendants Acqura, Castle, and Legrand removed the matter to this Court. On February 23,

21

2012, claims against Defendants Acqura, Castle, and Legrand were dismissed. The docket

22

reflects that no action has been taken by either party in this case with regards to T.D. Services

23

Company.

24
25
26
27
28

On June 4, 2012, this Court issued an Order stating:

Pursuant to Local Rule 41.1, "[a]ctions or proceedings which

have been pending in this court for more than six months, without

any proceeding or discovery having been taken therein during such

period, may, after notice, be dismissed by the court for want of

prosecution." S.D. Cal. Civ. Local Rule 41.1; see also Fed. R. Civ.

P.41(b). It appearing to the Court that dismissal for want of

prosecution may be appropriate in this case, Plaintiff is hereby

-1-

Ilcv2601-WQH JMA

1

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why this case should not be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

2

Plaintiff shall file a written response to this ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE on or before July 5, 2012. If Plaintiff does not
respond, the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice.

3

4

(ECF No.8 at 1-2).
5

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a written response to the ORDER TO SHOW
6

CAUSE. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
8

911

10 II

Dated:

71zd2­

11

12

13

14

15
16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25
26

27

28

-2-

llcv2601-WQH JMA