Marshall v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing 34

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice Joint Motion to Modify Scheduling Order (ECF No. 32 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda Lopez on 1/8/2019. (jdt)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Case No.: 17CV1818-LAB-LL

CINTHIA F. MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO
MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

15

Defendant.

[ECF No. 32]

16
17
18

On July 27, 2018, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion. In response,

19

the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause as to why Defendant’s motion

20

should not be summarily granted. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order.

21

On October 5, 2018, Defendant filed a “Motion for Discovery re Determination of

22

Discovery Dispute.” ECF No. 24. Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion. In response, the

23

Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to respond to the motion by no later than October

24

26, 2018. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff failed to comply with this Order.

25

On December 21, 2019, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Modify the Scheduling

26

Order to extend the deadlines for: (1) pre-trial motions; (2) the mandatory settlement

27

conference; (3) pre-trial disclosures; (4) complying with Local Rule 16.1(f)(4); (5) the

28
1
17CV1818 LAB-LL

1

Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Order; and (6) the Pretrial Conference. ECF No. 32.

2

In support, the Parties state the extension is necessary given Defendants’ Motion for

3

Judgment on the Pleadings and “Motion for Discovery re Determination of Discovery

4

Dispute.” Id. at 5.

5

On January 7, 2019, the Court granted in part Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on

6

the Pleadings. ECF No. 33. In the Order, Plaintiff was ordered to show cause as to why

7

this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute by no later than January 16,

8

2019. Id. at 2. The Court further ordered Plaintiff, to the extent she believes she can correct

9

the defects pointed out in Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, to file a

10

Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint by January 28, 2019. Id. at 2-3. If Plaintiff

11

files a Motion for Leave, Defendant’s Opposition will be due by February 11, 2019. Id. at

12

3.

13

For the above reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Parties’

14

request to continue pretrial deadlines at this time. If Plaintiff has shown good cause as to

15

why this action should not be dismissed, the Parties are ORDERED to contact the

16

Chambers of Judge Lopez within three days of Judge Burns’ ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion

17

for Leave to schedule a conference to reschedule the remaining pretrial dates.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: January 8, 2019

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17CV1818 LAB-LL